MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Opinion: Open Reduction Internal Fixation With Plates and Screws

2006· review· en· W1232822753 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntramedullary rodMalunionSurgeryFemoral shaftOsteosynthesisReduction (mathematics)Internal fixationExternal fixationFixation (population genetics)PopulationNonunionExternal fixator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The incidence of femoral fractures in children comprise 20 per 100,000 yearly in the United States and Europe. The treatment of femoral shaft fractures in the pediatric population remains controversial. The child's age often directs the management. Nonoperative treatment options include functional treatment for the very young, Pavlic harness, skin or skeletal traction, and spica casting. Operative treatment options include closed reduction and external fixation, open reduction and internal plate fixation, closed reduction and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO), and closed reduction and intramedullary nailing with either flexible or rigid nails. The effect of operative versus nonoperative treatment has been the focus of several comparative studies. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of different treatment options on the rate of union, malunion, leg-length discrepancy (LLD), complications, and outcome after femoral shaft fractures in children.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.306 · 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