MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967646650 · doi:10.1016/j.injury.2007.11.360

Cervical spine injury in association with craniomaxillofacial fractures

2008· article· en· W1967646650 on OpenAlexaff
Nadim Aslam, S. Sadiq, M. Ellahi

Bibliographic record

VenueInjury Extra · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Trauma and Fracture Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCervical spineCervical spine injuryAssociation (psychology)OrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

with vascularised fibular graft [VFG] (mean defect 14.6 cm).Mean period of follow-up was 44 months.Twenty-one (84%) and 16 (76%) patients in the IBT and VFG group, respectively achieved the radiological end points [p = 0.5].Bone and functional results, analyzed by Paley's evaluation system, showed no significant difference.Nineteen patients (76%) in IBT group and fifteen (71%) in the VFG group returned to productive work [p = 0.72].The hospital stay (15 days vs. 19 days) and operating time 2.45 h vs. 8.5 h) were significantly less of IBT group [p < 0.05].In IBT group external fixation index [EFI] (time in fixator/cm defect) was 1.21 [range 0.7-1.86].Mean hypertrophy time in VFG group of 18.5 m.Two patients in the IBT group and one in the VFG group had amputations and one patient in VFG group died.Three cases in the VFG group had flap loss.Stress fracture of the graft occurred in eight patients in the VFG group.Conclusion: Hospital stay, operating time and refractures were significantly less in IBT group while the incidence of re-operations were less in the VFG group.Choice of treatment should be decided by available expertise, informed patient choice and financial considerations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInjury ExtraSame topicFacial Trauma and Fracture ManagementFrench-language works237,207