Shortening after Femoral Neck Fracture Fixation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When using parallel screws for treatment of femoral neck fractures, shortening of the femoral neck might occur. Given the high revision surgery rates associated with parallel screws, we developed a questionnaire to explore (1) surgeons' viewpoints on difficulties in the fixation of femoral neck fractures, (2) their perception of the clinical importance of femoral neck shortening after internal fixation, and (3) their opinions regarding the ideal fixation device. Two hundred three surgeons responded. Eighty-three percent believed shortening of the femoral neck is common after screw fixation of femoral neck fractures; 89% believed shortening limits hip abductor function; and 69% believed shortening limits patients' physical function. When asked for features of the ideal implant for treatment of a femoral neck fracture, allowing compression across the fracture site on insertion and providing angular stability with a fixed-angle device to minimize shortening of the femoral neck were favored by 89% and 79% of the respondents, respectively. A plate with multiple nonparallel lag screws that can be locked into the plate might be a solution. However, the findings of this study are surgeons' opinions, which may or may not be confirmed by scientific evidence.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".