The Consistency Between Scientific Papers Presented at the Orthopaedic Trauma Association and their Subsequent Full-Text Publication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the consistency of conclusions/statements made in podium presentations at the annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) with those in subsequent full-text publications. Also, to evaluate the nature and consistency of study design, methods, sample sizes, results and assign a corresponding level of evidence. DATA SOURCES: Abstracts of the scientific programs of the OTA from 1994 to 1997 (N = 254) were queried by using the PubMed database to identify those studies resulting in a peer-reviewed, full-text publication. STUDY SELECTION: Of the 169 articles retrieved, 137 studies were the basis of our study after the exclusion criteria were applied: non-English language, basic science studies, anatomic dissection studies, and articles published in non-peer-reviewed journals. DATA EXTRACTION/SYNTHESIS: Information was abstracted onto a data form: first from the abstract published in the final meeting program, and then from the published journal article. Information was recorded regarding study issues, including the study design, primary objective, sample size, and statistical methods. We provided descriptive statistics about the frequency of consistent results between abstracts and full-text publications. The results were recorded as percentages and a 95% confidence interval was applied to each value. Study results were recorded for the abstract and full-text publication comparing results and the overall conclusion. A level of scientific-based evidence was assigned to each full-text publication. RESULTS: The final conclusion of the study remained the same 93.4% of the time. The method of study was an observational case series 52% of the time and a statement regarding the rate of patient follow-up was reported 42% of the time. Of the studies published, 18.2% consisted of a sample size smaller than the previously presented abstract. When the published papers had their level of evidence graded, 11% were level I, 16% level II, 17% level III, and 56% level IV. CONCLUSIONS: Authors conclusions were consistent with those in full-text publications. Most studies were observational, less than half reported on the rate of patient follow-up. Many abstracts followed by publication had a smaller sample size in the published paper. Half of all studies were graded level IV evidence.
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 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 | 0.136 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".