MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098894137

FEMORAL NERVE NEUROPATHY COMPUCATING ILIOPSOAS HAEMORRHAGE IN PATIENTS WITHOUT HAEMOPHLLIA

2016· article· en· W7098894137 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicChemical synthesis and alkaloids
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIliopsoasIliopsoas MuscleFemoral nerveFemoral headDyscrasiaHematoma
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The femoral nerve is rarely involved in traumatic rupture and haemorrhage ofthe iliopsoas muscle. Almost all reported cases have occurred in haemophiliac patients. The first report of this condition, by Tallroth (1939), was in a haemophiliac patient. Later, the same author reported a case of femoral nerve palsy following injury in an adolescent in whom no blood dyscrasia was present (Tallroth 1941). Subsequent reports have dealt with femoral neuropathy found in haemophiliacs (Douglas and McAlpine 1956; Brower and Wilde 1966; Goodfellow, Fearn and Matthews 1967). In reviewing the subject, Goodfellow et a!. (1967) noted that there were only fourteen previous case reports and added twenty-four of their own. Only one of the patients was not a haemophiliac. This was a patient receiving anticoagulant therapy-the first such reported case in the literature. The purpose of this paper is to report four cases of femoral nerve involvement in patients without haemophilia. MATERIAL Since I 964 four cases of femoral nerve involvement from haemorrhage of the iliopsoas muscle have been treated at the Toronto East General and Orthopaedic Hospital. In none of these was the patient a haemophiliac. Three cases were in adolescents and one was in a

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)0.000
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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChemical synthesis and alkaloidsFrench-language works237,207