Should Calcaneal Fractures Be Treated Surgically?
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
A MEDLINE search from 1980 through 1996 revealed 1845 articles dealing with calcaneal fractures. Six of these articles that compared operative versus nonoperative treatment for displaced calcaneal fractures met the minimum criteria for inclusion in a meta-analysis. A statistical summary of information across the six articles revealed a trend for surgically treated patients to be more likely to return to the same type of work as compared with nonoperatively treated individuals. There also was a trend for nonoperatively treated patients to have a higher risk of experiencing severe foot pain than did operatively treated patients. Unfortunately, none of the other outcomes could be summarized formally across studies using statistical techniques because of variability in reporting across studies. Although the tendency was always for operatively treated patients to have better outcomes (reaching statistical significance in some of the articles), the strength of evidence to recommend operative treatment for displaced intraarticular calcaneal fractures remains weak. A large prospective randomized controlled trial should be able to answer this question.
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 | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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