MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1920626440 · doi:10.1177/229255030100900204

Reliability of Hand Fellows’ Measurements and Classifications from Radiographs of Distal Radius Fractures

2001· article· en· W1920626440 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Joy C. MacDermid, Robert S. Richards, Allan Donner, N. Bellamy, James H. Roth, Kevin A. Hildebrand

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plastic Surgery · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryWestern UniversitySt Joseph's Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraclass correlationMedicineReliability (semiconductor)RadiographyDisplacement (psychology)OrthodonticsRADIUSDorsumDistal radius fractureConfidence intervalSurgeryAnatomyWristInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inter-rater reliability of classification systems and the direct measurement of fracture displacement was evaluated for two hand fellows in 128 radiographs of distal radius fractures. The fracture classifications rated were the Older, Mayo, AO, McMurtry, Universal and Frykman systems. Measurements of displacement were radial tilt, radial shortening and dorsal angulation on pre- and postreduction films. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and kappas, and their associated 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Inter-rater reliability for classification systems was poor, with the exception of the Older system (kappa = 0.73). Prereduction measurement of radial inclination, dorsal angulation and radial shortening had excellent reliability (ICC 0.77). Postreduction films exhibited lower reliability in the same measurements (ICC 0.76). Hand fellows reported inconsistent use of classification systems or radiographical measurements in clinical practice. Further training and/or an increased emphasis on direct measurements, rather than classifications, may be warranted.

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)0.006
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations14
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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