Pain and disability reported in the year following a distal radius fracture: A cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Distal radius fractures are a common injury that cause pain and disability. The purpose of this study was to describe the pain and disabilities experienced by patients with a distal radius fracture in the first year following fracture. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of 129 patients with a fracture of the distal radius was conducted. Patients completed a Patient-rated Wrist Evaluation at their baseline clinic visit and at 2, 3, 6 and 12 months following their fracture. The frequency/severity of pain and disabilities reported was described at each time point. RESULTS: The majority of patients experienced mild pain at rest and (very) severe high levels of pain with movement during the first two-months following distal radius fracture. This time is also associated with (very) severe difficulty in performing specific functional activities and moderate to severe difficulty in four domains of usual activity. The majority of recovery occurred within six-months, but symptoms persisted for a small minority of patients at one-year following fracture. Patients had the most difficulty with carrying ten pounds and pushing up from a chair. Resumption of usual personal care and household work preceded, and was more complete, than work and recreational participation. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the normal course of recovery following a distal radius fracture is one where severe symptoms subside within the first two-months and the majority of patients can be expected to have minimal pain and disability by six-months following fracture. This information can be used when planning interventions and assessing whether the progress of a patient is typical of other patients.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".