MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322706943 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.cc.22.00272

Rotationplasty with Tibial Nerve Coaptation

2023· article· en· W4322706943 on OpenAlex
Solange de Wouters, Alexander Schade, Ali Etemad-Rezaie, David Nikomarov, Gregory H. Borschel, Sevan Hopyan

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

VenueJBJS Case Connector · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTibial nerveContraindicationSurgeryAmputationResectionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CASE: We present the case of a 14-year-old adolescent boy with a distal femoral osteosarcoma partially encasing the tibial nerve. He underwent rotationplasty with resection and coaptation (end-to-end repair) of the tibial nerve. By 1 year postoperatively, he had recovered sensation on the plantar aspect of his foot and Medical Research Council scale 4+/5 gastro-soleus contraction that powered extension of the new knee. CONCLUSION: Tibial nerve resection is not an absolute contraindication for rotationplasty, even in an adolescent. Nerve coaptation allows for well-functioning rotationplasty as an alternative to endoprosthetic reconstruction or above-knee amputation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.262 · 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