MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212980385 · doi:10.5435/jaaos-d-21-00612

Occupational Hazards for the Practicing Orthopaedic Surgeon: A Standard Review

2022· review· en· W4212980385 on OpenAlex
Kishan Patel, Hyrum Judd, Richard G. Harm, Jonathon Spanyer

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

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational health in dentistry
Canadian institutionsObject Research Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOrthopedic surgerySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Orthopaedic surgeons are exposed to various occupational hazards in a busy daily practice which can cause potential physical injury and additional mental stress. By better understanding the hazards that are faced in the operating theater and the preventive measures that can be taken to avoid injury, orthopaedic surgeons can remain effective in their patient care duties. Infectious exposures, radiation exposure, noise pollution, chemical hazards, and physical demands are frequently encountered at the time of surgery and should be attenuated or avoided when possible. Simple preventive measures can prolong careers and protect the operating surgeon from musculoskeletal injuries and even solid organ damage and malignancy. Important consideration should be taken to recognize potential occupational hazards and act prophylactically before injury has occurred, and constant vigilance is required to avoid additive injury over time from physical and chemical insults. Level of Evidence: Level V

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.349 · 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