MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055523544 · doi:10.1097/bpb.0b013e32832f5aa6

Early weight bearing after complete tibial shaft fractures in children

2009· article· en· W2055523544 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Jenkins, Dina L. Jones, Anthony A. Billings, Elizabeth Ackerman, John C. France, Eric T. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics B · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWeight-bearingSurgeryRadiographyClosed FractureReduction (mathematics)Body weightInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study determined the prevalence of complications related to early weight bearing and the factors associated with time to healing in children after a complete tibial shaft fracture. Radiographs and medical records were reviewed from patients with unilateral, closed, complete tibial shaft fractures who were treated nonoperatively with a long leg cast. There were 55 males (68.8%) and 25 females (31.2%) with a mean ± SD age of 6.0 ± 4.0 years (range 1-16). There were few complications (2.5%) and patients healed faster if they bore weight earlier (0.3 days faster for each day earlier to weight bearing, P = 0.02), were younger (2.3 days faster per year younger, P < 0.001), were female (2.7 days faster than males, P = 0.02), or did not have a closed reduction (3.8 days faster, P = 0.002) (R = 0.63). Time to weight bearing after complete tibial shaft fracture was not associated with an increased risk of complications. Earlier weight bearing was associated with a shorter time to healing. This study provides support for treatment with early weight bearing in children with closed, complete tibial shaft fractures.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics BSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207