MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167615419 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.rvw.20.00209

Clinical Use of Talar Prostheses

2021· article· en· W3167615419 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJBJS Reviews · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkleFixation (population genetics)Blood supplyOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

»: The blood supply to the talus is vulnerable to damage, making the talus susceptible to osteonecrosis, with limited treatment options. »: Talar bone replacement has been investigated as a treatment option to preserve ankle function and maintain limb length. »: Successful talar bone replacements have been performed for the past >35 years, with variations in design, methods of fixation, materials, and manufacturing techniques. »: The designs of talar prostheses range from custom-made partial (talar body) or total prostheses to prefabricated universal (non-custom-made) prostheses. »: Total talar prostheses have been demonstrated to function better than partial talar prostheses; however, there is a need for long-term studies regarding custom-made total talar prostheses and prefabricated universal talar prostheses in order to determine their long-term effectiveness.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.291
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.144 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it