MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413363978 · doi:10.1016/j.fas.2025.08.004

Minimally invasive and open posterior calcaneal displacement osteotomy for pediatric hindfoot deformity: A comparative study

2025· article· en· W4413363978 on OpenAlexaff
Madeleine Willegger, Caroline Cristofaro, Maryse Bouchard

Bibliographic record

VenueFoot and Ankle Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDeformityOsteotomyDisplacement (psychology)SurgeryOrthodontics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive posterior displacement calcaneal osteotomy (PDCO) is often used in hindfoot deformity correction in the adult population, but there is a paucity on its use in children. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of open versus minimally invasive PDCO (MI-PDCO) approach in children. METHODS: This is a consecutive series of PCDOs performed as a component of a complex foot and ankle reconstruction. RESULTS: Twenty-nine calcaneal osteotomies in 23 patients aged 13.0 ± 3.0 years were included. Eleven osteotomies were performed open (O-PDCO) and 18 MI-PDCO. Mean follow-up was 35.4 ± 19.1 months. No delayed union, non-union, or apophyseal growth disturbance was observed. Seven nerve paresthesias were observed, two in the O-PDCO (18.1 %) and five in the MI-PDCO (27.7 %) group, all improved. CONCLUSION: These results support MI-PDCO as a safe and effective alternative technique to conventional O-PDCO to correct pediatric hindfoot deformities. LEVEL OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE: Level 3 (retrospective comparative study).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoot and Ankle SurgerySame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207