MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Treatment Outcomes of Unstable Proximal Phalangeal Head Fractures of the Finger in Children

2004· article· en· W2020517159 on OpenAlexaff
Léonard Bergeron, Isabelle Gagnon, Christine l cuyer, Louise Caouette‐Laberge

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Plastic Surgery · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTraction (geology)Range of motionFixation (population genetics)Reduction (mathematics)Surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief The authors reviewed 37 children presenting with closed, unstable fractures of the proximal phalangeal head. Fractures were classified as intra-articular (n = 15), including 14 unicondylar and 1 bicondylar, or extra-articular (n = 22), including 20 subcondylar and 2 comminuted subcondylar. Eighteen patients underwent closed reduction with K-wire fixation (n = 11) or dynamic skeletal traction (n = 7). Nineteen patients underwent open reduction with K-wire fixation (n = 14) or miniscrews (n = 5). Results were considered excellent when the active range of motion (ROM) of the proximal interphalangeal joint was ≥ 90° (n = 26); fair, active ROM, 70 to 89° (n = 6); and poor, active ROM < 70° (n = 5). The intra-articular fractures were rated 9 excellent, 5 fair, and 1 poor. The extra-articular fractures were rated 17 excellent, 1 fair, and 4 poor. The 18 closed reductions, K-wire fixation (n = 11) and traction (n = 7), were rated 16 excellent and 2 fair. The 19 open reductions, K-wire fixation (n = 14) and miniscrew fixation (n = 5), were rated 10 excellent, 4 fair, and 5 poor. Closed reduction showed better results than open reduction. Dynamic skeletal traction proved to be simple and effective in treating these injuries. A review of 37 pediatric closed, unstable fractures of the proximal phalangeal head demonstrated excellent results in 77% of extra-articular and 60% of intra-articular fractures. Closed reductions (some with dynamic skeletal traction) showed 89% excellent results, compared with 53% of open reductions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Plastic SurgerySame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207