MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211086108 · doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.100227

Complications in ankle fracture surgery

2015· article· en· W4211086108 on OpenAlexaff
Mikko Ovaska

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Orthopaedica · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersSuomalainen Lääkäriseura DuodecimOrionin TutkimussäätiöEmil Aaltosen SäätiöHelsingin ja Uudenmaan Sairaanhoitopiiri
KeywordsMedicineAnkleSurgeryOrthopedic surgeryFoot and ankle surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classification of ankle fractures, 4 Fixation methods, 4 Locked plating systems, 4 Syndesmosis, 5 Posterior malleolus, 5 Vertical fracture of the medial malleolus, 5 Postoperative immobilization and weight bearing, 6 Outcome of ankle fracture surgery, 6 Complications in ankle fracture surgery, 6 Wound complications and surgical site infection (SSI), 6 Malreduction, loss of reduction, and post-traumatic osteoarthritis, 7 Other complications, 8 Patients at higher risk for postoperative complications, 9 Hardware related infection, 9 General principles, 10 Exposed hardware and biofilm, 10 Removal or retention of infected hardware?10 Salvage of exposed hardware, 10 Flap reconstruction for soft-tissue defects in the ankle, 10 Timing of flap coverage, 11 Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT), 11 Flap coverage in the salvage of infected hardware, 11 95% CI 95% confidence interval ASA American society of anaesthesiology score ATFL anterior tibiofibular ligament BMI body mass index (kg/m2) CI confidence interval C-RP C-reactive protein CT computed tomography HRQoL health related quality of life ICD international classification of diseases

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OrthopaedicaSame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207