Update of surgical treatment of polydactyly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Polydactyly presents with variable extent of duplication and may involve preaxial/radial (hand)/medial (foot), postaxial/ulnar (hand)/lateral (foot) or central duplication. This review will summarize recent advancements in the surgical management of this common entity. RECENT FINDINGS: Modifications to classification systems aim to help guide surgical management of polydactyly. Attempts have been made at quantifying preoperative angulation of the duplicated digits to minimize the chance of residual or recurrent deformity after surgical reconstruction. As a result, consideration should be given to the need for soft tissue correction vs. osteotomy to optimize the clinical outcome. On-top plasty is an option that may be beneficial in 'unequal' preaxial polydactyly, where neither duplicate is preferred on its own. SUMMARY: Polydactyly is one of the most common congenital anomalies in the hands and feet. Determination of surgical intervention often begins with classification systems that exist, which primarily separate these into preaxial, postaxial, and central. Referral for surgical consideration is indicated, given the management is often surgical.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".