A Cohort Study of One-Year Functional and Radiographic Outcomes following Intra-Articular Distal Radius Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to describe the outcomes of a series of patients followed prospectively after intra-articular distal radius fractures. METHODS: One hundred forty-eight patients with intra-articular fractures (mean age, 47 years; age range, 44-54 years; gender distribution, 60 males and 88 females) were treated with cast only, arthroscopy/closed reduction plus pins, arthroscopy/closed reduction with external fixation, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) alone, and ORIF with external fixation according to surgeon preference and fracture characteristics. The 1-year outcomes across the groups were measured radiographically (n = 148) and functionally (n = 113; 1-year Wrist Outcome Measure score, Grip Strength, SF-36, and PRWE scores). RESULTS: Radiographically, the groups had statistically significant differences in radial inclination, volar tilt, intra-articular step-off, and radial shortening in the pre-treatment X-rays. However, following treatment, treatment groups demonstrated no difference statistically in their follow-up radiographic measures. One-year PRWE scores were found to be statistically different across groups. Across groups, the ORIF-alone treatment group had the highest PRWE score reflecting greatest amount of pain and disability. One-year wrist outcome measure scores and grip strength scores were also found to be significantly different across treatment groups. The general health status as measured by the SF-36 was not found to be different across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are consistent with treatment by indication; suboptimal ORIF outcomes may reflect older practice patterns with dorsal plating. A randomized control trial that compares treatments controlling for fracture severity and studies that develop formal clinical prediction rules for treatment assignment are needed.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".