MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392057403 · doi:10.52965/001c.94037

Acromioclavicular joint separation: Controversies and treatment algorithm

2024· article· en· W4392057403 on OpenAlex
Waleed Albishi, Fahad Alshayhan, Afnan Alfridy, Abdulrahman Alaseem, Amr Elmaraghy

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

VenueOrthopedic Reviews · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder and Clavicle Injuries
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcromioclavicular jointMedicineSeparation (statistics)Joint (building)SurgeryAlgorithmComputer scienceMachine learningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we present an uptodate outline of acromioclavicular (AC) joint separation. A clear understanding of acromioclavicular joint injury in terms of the mechanism of injury, clinical picture, diagnostic imaging, and most updated surgical techniques used for the treatment can provide the best care for those patients. This article describes updated treatment strategies for AC separation, including type III AC separation which is known most controversial. Finally, we present a proposed treatment algorithm that can aid in the treatment of AC separation from the most updated evidence.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.370 · 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