MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089783171 · doi:10.14740/jocmr1977w

An Atypical Calcaneal Fracture in a Child: A Literature Review Concerning the Treatment

2014· review· en· W2089783171 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Leonardo Waihrich Guterres, Deryck Aguiar Ribeiro, Tiango Aguiar Ribeiro

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRange of motionSurgeryRadiographyHeelNeurovascular bundlePhysical examinationCalcaneusCalcaneal fractureAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Calcaneal fractures are considered uncommon accounting for 0.005-0.41% of all children fractures. Few reports concerning treatment are available. Most of these fractures are non-displaced/minimally displaced and are associated with a fall of less than 1 m. The aim of this case report was to discuss the diagnosis and treatment of a child calcaneal fracture, an atypical presentation despite the high energy mechanism of trauma. A 7-year-old child fell from a 5-m ladder with all his weight on his right heel. Significantly hind-foot reduced range of motion associated with a lateral/plantar calcaneal swelling and pain was found. Neurovascular examination and other parts of the body were normal. Radiograph showed an undisplaced calcaneal body fracture and computed tomography confirmed no subtalar joint involvement. A splint followed by plaster was applied. Weight bearing and deambulation were not allowed. After 4 weeks, no pain and limping was reported by the child's parents. Plaster was removed and radiograph showed fracture consolidation. Patient had no complaints of pain, no restrictions in range of motion and normal walking. Limping in children is a difficult complaint to assess. Differential diagnoses of a calcaneal fractures should be performed, even without a history of trauma or a history of trivial trauma.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.010
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 head0.401
GPT teacher head0.635
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207