Determination of Functional Outcome Following Upper Extremity Arterial Trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upper extremity arterial trauma may lead to significant disability with a poor functional outcome. This study represents a retrospective review of all trauma patients presenting to a university-affiliated medical center. Patients suffering from upper extremity arterial injuries requiring treatment were identified. The injured vessels were identified along with the mechanism of injury and method of repair. The degree of functional disability was evaluated by using a previously validated questionnaire, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) Outcome Measure. Between September 1999 and December 2004, 17 patients presented with traumatic arterial injury to the upper extremity, with 9 and 8 patients suffering from blunt and penetrating traumas, respectively. One patient required amputation representing a limb salvage rate of 94%. The mean length of hospitalization was significantly shorter for penetrating trauma (5.1 vs 12 days, P = .03), with blunt trauma victims being more prone to coexisting orthopedic injuries (P = .009). Length of follow-up did not differ between the 2 groups and ranged from 1-60 months. Patients with blunt trauma tended, although not statistically significant, to have higher DASH scores (61.8 vs 22.8, P = .08), indicating a greater degree of disability. By utilizing a validated disability questionnaire, this study confirms that patients suffering from blunt injuries to upper extremity arteries are more likely to have greater degrees of disability affecting everyday activities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".