Clavo Gamma 3 (Stryker) para el tratamiento de fracturas trocantéreas: nuestra experiencia durante el año 2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolObjetivos: estudiar los resultados del sistema de enclavado Gamma 3 en el tratamiento de las fracturas trocantereas durante el ano 2005. Material y Metodos: 73 pacientes con fractura trocanterea mayores de 60 anos tratados mediante enclavado cefalo-medular Gamma 3 durante el ano 2005 con un seguimiento de 8 a18 meses. Edad media 80 anos, 40% de los pacientes deambulantes de forma independiente previo a la fractura, 50% ASA III y IV. Resultados: tiempo quirurgico 90 minutos, 54% de pacientes transfundidos con una media de 0,89 concentrados por paciente sin diferencias estadisticamente significativas entre aquellos en lo que se coloco y tapon y los que no; 63% de los pacientes deambulan si ayuda en el pstoperatorio. Conclusiones: el sistema Gamma 3 proporciona resultados fiables y reproducible en cualquier variedad de fractura trocanterea y nos parece un sistema eficaz y valido para el tratamiento de este tipo de fracturas. EnglishObjectives: to study the results of Gamma 3 for the treatment of trochanteric fractures. Material and Methods: 73 patients older than 60 years old with trochanteric fracture tre- ated using Gamma 3 nailing during year 2005. Follow-up 8-18 months. Mean age 80 years old, 40% preoperative walking without help, 50% ASA III and IV. Results: surgical time 90 minutes, 54% of the patients need blood transfusion with 0,89 concentrates per patients mean. No difference was found in blood transfusion with the use of end cup. 63% walking wit- hout help of with cane postoperatively. Conclusions: Gamma 3 nail is a valid system for the treatment of all types of tro- chanteric fractures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".