Analysis of Scar Formation After Lower Limb Lengthening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limb lengthening aims to reduce limb length discrepancy, improve cosmesis, and permit more functional mobility. Scarring, however, is a major concern of patients. In this study 25 patients (27 lengthening sites) were assessed; 6 sites were lengthened with Orthofix and 21 sites with Ilizarov. Altogether, 452 pin tract scars were assessed. The mean scar length was 11.5 mm in the Ilizarov group (n = 415) and 54.1 mm in the Orthofix group (n = 37). The mean scar width was 5.6 mm in the Ilizarov group and 11.5 mm in the Orthofix group. The mean patient satisfaction was 7.3 in the Orthofix group and 5.5 in the Ilizarov group. The mean Vancouver score was 0.66 in the Ilizarov group and 3.1 in the Orthofix group. The scars were shorter and cosmetically better in the Ilizarov group, but patients were more satisfied in the Orthofix group because there were fewer scars. Patients were also more satisfied with the thigh scars than with the leg scars because clothing can easily cover the thigh scars.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".