MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052884199 · doi:10.1097/bot.0b013e3181ca3f97

When Is a Fracture Healed? Radiographic and Clinical Criteria Revisited

2010· review· en· W2052884199 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiographyGold standard (test)Bone healingReliability (semiconductor)ModalitiesPlain radiographyOrthodonticsDentistrySurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selecting the most appropriate outcome measures can be especially burdensome in trials studying fracture healing, because the process of fracture healing is subjective and without a gold standard. Although a wide variety of radiographic modalities are available, plain radiography remains the most common approach for healing assessment. Radiographic criteria, however, do not correlate well with fracture strength and stiffness. Additional challenges include a lack of consensus in what radiographic measures are most appropriate in the assessment of healing. In this article, we provide an overview of the most commonly used radiographic and clinical criteria for defining fracture healing. The validity and reliability of alternative approaches is also discussed.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.345 · 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