MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015187368 · doi:10.1097/ta.0b013e3181b28aee

Fixation of Marginal Posterior Acetabular Wall Fractures Using Locking Reconstruction Plates and Monocortical Screws

2010· article· en· W2015187368 on OpenAlexaff
Ayman M.A. Tadros, Peter J. O’Brien, Pierre Guy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic and Acetabular Injuries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonunionFixation (population genetics)OrthodonticsMaterials scienceSurgeryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marginal posterior wall fractures are often fixed by lag screws, which may be technically difficult and risks articular penetration. Spring plates are used to avoid articular penetration. Both lag screws and spring plates are usually buttressed by reconstruction plates. The aim of this report is to describe a technique for fixing those fractures using locking reconstruction plate and monocortical screws avoiding articular penetration and sparing spring plates. A locking reconstruction plate is placed in a position that allows buttressing of the fracture fragment and fixed proximally and distally first using non-locking screws. The marginal fracture is fixed using monocortical locking head screws. This technique has been performed on three patients; none had secondary displacement or nonunion. Fixing marginal posterior acetabular wall fractures using locking reconstruction plates and monocortical screws saves additional lag screws or spring plates without risking articular penetration.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicPelvic and Acetabular InjuriesFrench-language works237,207