MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041622340 · doi:10.1503/cjs.003111

Endstage arthritis following tibia plateau fractures: average 10-year follow-up

2012· article· en· W2041622340 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ramin Mehin, Peter O’Brien, Henry M. Broekhuyse, Piotr A. Blachut, Pierre Guy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalAbbotsford Veterinary Clinic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTibiaPlateau (mathematics)ArthritisSurgeryGeneral surgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with tibial plateau fractures are believed to have an increased risk for posttraumatic arthritis that may require reconstructive surgery. The incidence of this problem is, however, unknown. We sought to determine the average 10-year incidence of posttraumatic arthritis necessitating reconstructive surgery following tibia plateau fractures. METHODS: We used data from our orthopedic trauma database to identify patients with operatively treated tibia plateau fractures. Their cases were cross-referenced with the data from our province's administrative health database and tracked overtime for the performance of reconstructive knee surgery. The average follow-up was 10 years. RESULTS: There were 311 tibial plateau fractures treated at our institution between 1987 and 1994. The 10-year Kaplan-Meier survival analysis for the primary outcome of endstage arthritis was 96%. Analysis of the secondary outcome measure, specifically surgeries for what was thought to be "minor arthritis," revealed a 10-year Kaplan-Meier survival of 87%. CONCLUSION: Our findings may be used to counsel patients who require surgical treatment of tibia plateau fractures about the long-term risk of requiring reconstructive knee surgery for endstage arthritis in the knee.

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)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations84
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207