MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1546228466 · doi:10.1177/229255030801600304

Closed Reduction Internal Fixation Rates and Procedure Times for Metacarpal Fractures Treated in a Minor Surgery Area Before and After the Introduction of a Mini C-Arm Unit

2008· article· en· W1546228466 on OpenAlexaffvenue
RC Mahabir, CM Decroff, L Thurgood, Ar Harrop

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plastic Surgery · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryFoothills Medical CentreAlberta Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal fixationSurgeryPercutaneousReduction (mathematics)Fixation (population genetics)Metacarpal bonesNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mini C-arm units are compact, mobile, fluoroscopic imaging systems designed for real-time imaging of the extremities. They deliver the lowest possible radiation exposure to the patient and physician while minimizing operator effort and inconvenience. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was undertaken for consecutive metacarpal fractures requiring internal fixation treated in the minor surgery centre before (n=100) and after (n=100) the introduction of the mini C-arm. Open versus closed approach, procedure time and total operating room time were recorded. RESULTS: Before the introduction of the mini C-arm, the percutaneous rate was 48% and the average procedure and total operating room times were 55 min and 102 min, respectively. After mini C-arm implementation, the percutaneous rate increased to 59% and the average procedure and total times were 36 min and 78 min, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a mini C-arm increased the rate of successful closed reduction internal fixation and reduced the procedure time for metacarpal fractures treated in the minor surgery area.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plastic SurgerySame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207