Finding consensus for hamstring surgery in ambulatory children with cerebral palsy using the Delphi method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: There is marked variation in indications and techniques for hamstring surgery in children with cerebral palsy. There is particular uncertainty regarding the indications for hamstring transfer compared to traditional hamstring lengthening. The purpose of this study was for an international panel of experts to use the Delphi method to establish consensus indications for hamstring surgery in ambulatory children with cerebral palsy. Methods: The panel used a five-level Likert-type scale to record agreement or disagreement with statements regarding hamstring surgery, including surgical indications and techniques, post-operative care, and outcome measures. Consensus was defined as at least 80% of responses being in the highest or lowest two of the five Likert-type ratings. General agreement was defined as 60%-79% falling into the highest or lowest two ratings. There was no agreement if neither of these thresholds was reached. Results: The panel reached consensus or general agreement for 38 (84%) of 45 statements regarding hamstring surgery. The panel noted the importance of assessing pelvic tilt during gait when considering hamstring surgery, and also that lateral hamstring lengthening is rarely needed, particularly at the index surgery. They noted that repeat hamstring lengthening often has poor outcomes. The panel was divided regarding hamstring transfer surgery, with only half performing such surgery. Conclusion: The results of this study can help pediatric orthopedic surgeons optimize decision-making in their choice and practice of hamstring surgery for ambulatory children with cerebral palsy. This has the potential to reduce practice variation and significantly improve outcomes for ambulatory children with cerebral palsy. 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.214 | 0.228 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".