MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessment of Fragment Micromotion in Distal Femur Fracture Fixation with RSA

2006· article· en· W2041866768 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Duffy, Kelly Trask, A. Hennigar, Laurie Barron, Ross Leighton, Michael Dunbar

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCondyleFixation (population genetics)Deformation (meteorology)FemurFracture (geology)Strain (injury)Displacement (psychology)BiomechanicsStress (linguistics)OrthodonticsAnatomySurgeryComposite materialMaterials sciencePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To assess fragment micromotion in three fracture fixation constructs 18 composite femur models were sectioned to create AO-C3 fractures and fixed using the Less Invasive Stabilization System (LISS), Dynamic Condylar Screw (DCS), or the Condylar Buttress Plate (CBP). Tantalum beads were attached to each fracture fragment. The constructs were tested for permanent deformation after cyclical loading (amplitude = 242.2N) and elastic deformation during static loading with 490.5N. Radiographs were taken before loading and then after unloading to determine permanent deformation or during loading to determine elastic deformation. We used RSA to quantify the six degrees of freedom interfragmentary maximum total motion, strain, and stress. For maximum total motion the CBP had more permanent deformation and two failures, whereas the LISS underwent the greatest elastic deformation. LISS and CBP had the highest strain conditions in the fracture gap and LISS had the greatest stress movements between fragments, all of which exceeded the upper limits for bone healing. LISS and CBP may not be indicated for comminuted fractures due to the high degree of flexibility of the LISS, resulting in high stress and strain conditions and susceptibility to catastrophic failure and high strain conditions with the CBP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.384 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations22
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207