MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003446119 · doi:10.1097/bot.0b013e3181694f7d

Percutaneous Humeral Plating of Fractures of the Proximal Humerus: Results of a Prospective Multicenter Clinical Trial

2008· article· en· W2003446119 on OpenAlexaff
George Yves Laflamme, Dominique M. Rouleau, Gregory K. Berry, Pierre Beaumont, Rudolf Reindl, Edward J. Harvey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryAxillary nerveDeltoid curvePercutaneousHumerusDashShoulder FractureProspective cohort studyReduction (mathematics)Brachial plexus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and functional outcome of a recently described surgical technique of percutaneous plating for proximal humerus fractures. DESIGN: Prospective clinical trial. SETTING: : Two urban Level 1 university trauma centers. PATIENTS: From February 2002 to December 2003, 34 consecutive patients underwent surgery by 5 trauma surgeons from 2 teaching hospitals. Twenty-seven patients had 1-year follow-up. INTERVENTION: The technique involved 2 minimal incisions with a lateral deltoid split and a more distal shaft incision. A proximal humerus-specific locking plate was implemented. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand) and Constant-Murley evaluation scores were used for functional evaluation. The presence of complications was noted. RESULTS: Specifically, there were no axillary nerve injury injuries and no loss of reduction. The average Constant score at 1 year was 82 and the DASH score was 26. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the functional outcome results correspond to a normal age-adjusted score signifying an acceptable result.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations116
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic TraumaSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207