MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394894039 · doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2024.04.043

A minimally invasive hybrid procedure to correct pectus arcuatum

2024· article· en· W4394894039 on OpenAlexafffund
Etienne St‐Louis, Jean‐Martin Laberge, Hussein Wissanji, Sherif Emil

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Plastic Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPectus Deformity Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsShriners Hospitals for Children - CanadaMcGill University Health CentreMontreal Children's Hospital
FundersFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of SydneyMcGill University
KeywordsMinimally invasive proceduresComputer scienceMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pectus arcuatum, also known as horns of steer anomaly or Currarino-Silverman Syndrome, is a distinct chest wall anomaly characterized by severe manubriosternal angulation, a shortened sternum, and mild pectus excavatum. The anomaly is typically repaired using open techniques, employing orthopedic fixation devices. Here, we report the results of a minimally invasive hybrid procedure to repair pectus arcuatum. METHODS: The procedure combines a standard Nuss procedure to correct the depressed sternum with a short upper chest (in boys) or inter-mammary (in girls) incision for bilateral subperichondrial resection of the upper costal cartilages, osteotomy, and correction of the manubrial angulation. The medical records of all patients who underwent the procedure over the last 10 years were reviewed. RESULTS: Five patients, 3 boys and 2 girls, aged 14 to 17 years, underwent the procedure. Three patients had their pectus bars removed 3-4 years after repair. Follow-up after correction ranged from 6 months to 7 years. Good correction resulted in all patients achieving recovery without complications and recurrence. To date, all patients have been satisfied with their results. CONCLUSIONS: The minimally invasive hybrid procedure adequately corrects pectus arcuatum with minimal scarring and high satisfaction.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Plastic Reconstructive & Aesthetic SurgerySame topicPectus Deformity Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207