MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183649479 · doi:10.1055/s-0041-1731632

Tendon: Principles of Healing and Repair

2021· review· en· W3183649479 on OpenAlex
Christian Chartier, Hassan ElHawary, Aslan Baradaran, Joshua Vorstenbosch, Liqin Xu, Johnny Ionut Efanov

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

VenueSeminars in Plastic Surgery · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTendonTendinopathySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tendon stores, releases, and dissipates energy to efficiently transmit contractile forces from muscle to bone. Tendon injury is exceedingly common, with the spectrum ranging from chronic tendinopathy to acute tendon rupture. Tendon generally develops according to three main steps: collagen fibrillogenesis, linear growth, and lateral growth. In the setting of injury, it also repairs and regenerates in three overlapping steps (inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling) with tendon-specific durations. Acute injury to the flexor and extensor tendons of the hand are of particular clinical importance to plastic surgeons, with tendon-specific treatment guided by the general principle of minimum protective immobilization followed by hand therapy to overcome potential adhesions. Thorough knowledge of the underlying biomechanical principles of tendon healing is required to provide optimal care to patients presenting with tendon injury.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.267 · 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