Management of Uncomplicated Nail Bed Lacerations Presenting to a Children's Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the mechanisms of injury and the pattern of care for children who presented to the emergency department with uncomplicated nail bed lacerations. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted from January 2004 to December 2007 for all children younger than 18 years who presented to a tertiary children's hospital with an uncomplicated nail bed laceration. RESULTS: There were 84 cases of uncomplicated nail bed injuries for more than a 4-year period. Sixty percent of the subjects were males. The mean age was 5.3 (SD, 4.1) years. Most injuries occurred at home (58%), and the most common mechanism of injury was a door (67%). Approximately 40% of patients were treated by emergency physicians. There was no significant difference in acute and chronic complications or in the length of stay in the emergency department, between patients treated by emergency physicians and by plastic surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Most nail bed injuries in children occur at home, and the door seems to be the major mechanism of injury. Approximately 57% of these are children younger than 5 years. Only 42% of uncomplicated nail bed lacerations are treated by emergency physicians, yet there is no significant difference in outcomes between plastic surgeons and emergency physicians. Our study suggests that there is a role in public education for primary prevention, and with proper training, pediatric emergency physicians can treat uncomplicated nail bed lacerations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".