Bibliographic record
Abstract
TherapeuticsNovember 1, 2001Surgery was more effective than orthosis for hallux valgusHans J. Kreder, MD, MPHHans J. Kreder, MD, MPHUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (H.J.K.)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/ACPJC-2001-135-3-104 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Source CitationTorkki M, Malmivaara A, Seitsalo S, et al. Surgery vs orthosis vs watchful waiting for hallux valgus. A randomized control trial. JAMA. 2001 May 16;285:2474-80. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11368700References1 Mann R, Coughlin MJ. Adult hallux valgus. In: Mann RA, Coughlin MJ. Surgery of the Foot and Ankle. 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1993:167-296. Google Scholar2 Coughlin MJ. Hallux valgus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:932-66. Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (H.J.K.) PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails November 1, 2001Volume 135, Issue 3Page: 104 ePublished: 9 March 2020 Issue Published: November 1, 2001 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2001 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".