Treatment of Acute Midshaft Clavicle Fractures: Systematic Review of 2144 Fractures
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fractures of the clavicle were reported to represent 2.6% of all fractures with an overall incidence of 64 per 100,000 per year (1987, Malmö, Sweden). Midshaft fractures account for approximately 69% to 81% of all clavicle fractures. Treatment options for acute midshaft clavicle fractures include nonoperative treatment (mostly sling or figure-of-eight bandage), open reduction and internal fixation with plates, and closed or open reduction and internal fixation with intramedullary pins, wires, or a nail. Most surgeons prefer nonoperative treatment of nondisplaced midshaft clavicle fractures. However, the optimal treatment option for isolated acute displaced midshaft clavicle fractures remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to systematically summarize and compare results of different treatment options (nonoperative, operative extramedullary fixation, and operative intramedullary fixation) in the management of midshaft clavicle fractures, specifically for displaced fractures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it