MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975925221 · doi:10.1080/00016470410001708200

A prospective cost analysis following operative treatment of unstable ankle fractures30 patients followed for 1 year

2004· article· en· W1975925221 on OpenAlex
Mohit Bhandari, Sheila Sprague, Olufemi R. Ayeni, Beate Hanson, Jaydeep Moro

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Orthopaedica Scandinavica · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkleQuality of life (healthcare)SurgeryProspective cohort studyPhysical therapyCost analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ankle fractures remain one of the commonest injuries requiring operation. Quality of life and the overall costs associated with the treatment of such injuries are rarely reported. We did a pilot study to determine the cost of treating patients operatively with unstable ankle fractures and to measure the patients' quality of life (utility scores) over time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 30 patients (17 men) were eligible and included in the study. They were on the average 52 (18-81) years old. All patients had type B Weber fractures (OTA 44B). RESULTS: The mean utility score from the Health Utilities Index immediately after surgery was 0.4. At 12 months follow-up, this score had increased to 0.78. The cost was, on average, USD 2,143 per patient. INTERPRETATION: Our findings indicate that patients operated on for ankle fractures had significant gains in health at an acceptable cost. These results provide data for studies of larger sample size.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.297 · 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