MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W68355442

ANTERIOR CERVICAL SURGICAL RETRACTOR DESIGN

2014· article· en· W68355442 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeffrey Kent, Ish Bains, R. John Hurlbert, Stephan du Plessis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of undergraduate research in Alberta · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetractorMedicineOrthodonticsDistractionSurgeryCervical spineComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION During anterior cervical surgeries such as discectomies and corpectomies (removal of the disc separating two vertebrae and removal of the vertebral body itself, respectively 1 ), surgeons implement a retractor device to broaden the view of the spinal area on which they are operating.  The current devices have flaws; including a lack of stability, complicated mechanisms, multiple pieces, or difficulty stacking, and a new retractor is needed.  Stacking, occurs in a multiple level surgery, when more than two or more devices are needed simultaneously to hold the area open.  Our design utilizes the distraction screw to stabilize the retractor in position, without the impediment of the device becoming an obstacle for the surgeons to manoeuvre around. METHODS Based on the expertise of the experienced surgeons, multiple models will be drawn.  The most practical concept will then be developed on autoCAD software.  The lower width of the blades uses a simple rotation-linear motion system.  Meanwhile, the upper part of the blade is rotated about the lower part, allowing the blade to be used at an angle. RESULTS A physical model of the device (as seen in Figure 1 below) has yet to be printed and tested.  Nevertheless, the new model is placed within the patient, allowing the surgeons to work without worrying about the device being an obstruction.  The blades are angled wider at the top and narrower at the bottom), making it easier for the surgeons’ hands to fit in the small void in the patient’s neck. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Since a prototype has not been created or clinically tested yet, all results and conclusions are merely speculations.  Our new device is: simple to use, less obstructive, and able to provide a broader view of the operating area.  In addition, in the rare event that these longer blades require stacking, it is very simple to implement.  The surgeon will simply place a second retractor on the second distraction screw. Since every patient is a different size, the blades must be interchangeable.  This way the surgeon can choose what length and height he/she wants the blade to be for each surgery.  Similar to the previous devices, the blades are curved at the bottom with teeth; this helps the device bite into the soft tissue and minimize slipping.  The blades will be made of titanium, which is strong, radiolucent, and easy to sterilize.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of undergraduate research in AlbertaSame topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207