MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Adolescent Pilon Fracture: Management and Outcome

2001· article· en· W1978736645 on OpenAlexaff
Merv Letts, Darin Davidson, Mike McCaffrey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePilon fractureSurgeryAnkleInternal fixationReduction (mathematics)ComplicationExternal fixationExternal fixator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pilon fractures in the adolescent are complicated by the presence of the adjacent physis. These fractures usually result from high-energy trauma, frequently associated with soft-tissue trauma, further potentiating treatment difficulties. Although rare, such fractures are associated with a high complication rate, including physeal arrest. It was the objective of this review to increase awareness of this fracture pattern in the adolescent, to determine the types of complications in this difficult group, and to develop a treatment plan to improve the outcome of treatment. Seven children, with a total of eight pilon fractures were treated at a major pediatric tertiary referral center over the past 10 years. The average age of the children was 15 years 10 months (range, 13 years 6 months to 17 years 7 months). The average length of follow-up was 16 months (range, 3 months and 3 years 10 months). There were three Reudi type II equivalent fractures and two Reudi type III equivalent injuries. Three fractures did not fit the Reudi classification system as there was an associated ankle dislocation. All fractures were treated with open reduction and internal fixation. There were two cases of posttraumatic osteoarthritis and one physeal arrest. Results were good to excellent in 63% of cases. A new classification system for pediatric pilon fractures has been proposed.

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)0.000
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 score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.283
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 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

Citations9
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric OrthopaedicsSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207