REVIEW ARTICLE REHABILITATION PROCEDURES IN CASES OF CONGENITAL MALFORMATIONS OF THE LIMBS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
T H E recent thalidomide tragedy has focused public attention on congenital malformations of the limbs, but it is not generally appreciated that approximately 1 to 2 % of newborn infants present a variety of congenital malformations (Pitt, 1962). There are no precise figures for the limb malformations alone, but they are known to have afflicted mankind since ancient times, and long before the appear-ance of the thalidomide-induced malformations a considerable pool of practical experience had been acquired in the management of these problems. Much of the material presented in this paper has been collected from a review of the more recent literature and from an extensive study recently carried out at the Rehabilitation Institute of Montreal (Gingras et ah, 1964). CLASSIFICATION There is a large variety of deformities involving one or more extremities, and unfortunately there has always been some confusion regarding their classification (Swinyard, 1962). In 1961 Frantz and O'Rahilly suggested a rational nomenclature which is based on the anatomy of the extremity deficiency or anomaly. More
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".