Facial Fractures – Association with Ocular Injuries: A 13-Year Review of One Practice in a Tertiary Care Centre
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of ocular injury associated with facial fractures has been reported to be between 0.8% and 30%. OBJECTIVE: Because of this wide range of incidences, a system to stratify the risk of ocular injury by type of facial fracture was sought. METHODS: The present study reviewed 266 patients with facial fractures to determine the risk factors for ocular injury. The anatomy of each facial fracture was classified using an orbit-centred approach according to the number of orbital walls fractured. Patients were then grouped using this classification system. Charts documenting follow-up for each patient over a minimum of one year were examined and initial emergency room presentations of patients with subsequent visual impairment were recorded. RESULTS: The incidence of severe visual impairment and blindness was 4.5% overall. Although all facial fractures (including isolated fractures of the mandible) had a notable incidence of ocular injury, an increased number of orbital wall fractures were correlated with an increased incidence of permanent visual disability. One of 147 (0.68%) patients without an orbital wall fracture sustained permanent severe ocular injury or blindness, while 13.5% (five of 37) of three-wall orbital fracture patients and 25% (four of 16) of four-wall orbital fracture patients sustained the same injury. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of ocular injury in complex facial fractures can be stratified by the degree of orbital wall involvement. However, because all patients with persistent visual impairment had ocular findings on initial examination, it is proposed that oculovisual testing is a more sensitive indicator of lasting ocular injuries than the type of facial fracture.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it