[Overgrowth of femoral fractures in childhood].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to define the role of different factors which can accelerate overgrowth of femoral fractures in childhood. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty-one fractures of the femur observed in 28 boys and 23 girls, mean age four years, were treated orthopedically. Twelve fractures involved the upper third of the femur, 34 the middle third and five the lower third. There were 30 transverse, 13 oblique, and eight spiral fractures. Overgrowth (OG) was assessed on x-rays obtained two years after bone healing and defined as the sum of the initial shortening (RI) plus leg length difference (LLD): OG=RI + LLD. RESULTS: OG was 11.3 mm in boys and 7.55 in girls, mean 9.5 mm. OG was greatest between the ages of 3 and 7 years. OG was 18.62 mm in spiral fractures, 9.15 mm in oblique fractures and 7.59 mm in transverse fractures. OG was 12.41, 9.46, and 2.49 mm for the upper, middle, and lower femur. Mean OG was 5.46, 9.43, and 18.09 mm for RI<5 mm, 5 mm 10 mm respectively. There was a linear relationship between RI and OG: OG=0.84 RI + 3.4. DISCUSSION: Taking into account different factors, bony overgrowth can be estimated from the initial shortening in fractures of the femur in children. It is tolerated better in boys, between the age of 3 and 7 years, and for proximal and spiral 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".