MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Non-union of Non-operatively Treated Displaced Olecranon Fractures

2012· article· en· W2110219198 on OpenAlexaff
Wendy E. Bruinsma, Anneluuk L.C. Lindenhovius, Michael D. McKee, George S. Athwal, David Ring

Bibliographic record

VenueShoulder & Elbow · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElbow and Forearm Trauma Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareWestern UniversitySt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOlecranonMedicineElbowSurgeryForearmRange of motionNon unionPresentation (obstetrics)Nonunion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background With this case series, we report the management of patients who present with non-union after no treatment or intentional non-operative management of a displaced olecranon fracture. We hypothesized that the majority of these patients would be satisfied with their symptoms and function. Methods Ten patients (six women and four men) with a mean age of 59 years (range 21 years to 94 years) presented to one of seven surgeons with non-union of a displaced fracture of the olecranon a mean of 17 months (range 3 months to 7 years) after injury. Results The mean flexion-extension arc at presentation was 117° (range 100° to 135°) with a mean flexion of 137° (range 120° to 150°) and a mean extension of 21° (range 10° to 40°). Forearm rotational arc was a mean of 172° (range 150° to 180°) with a mean pronation of 86° (range 75° to 90°) and a mean supination of 86° (range 75° to 90°). Two patients who had difficulty participating in daily activities because of pain or loss of function requested operative treatment. Eight patients declined operative treatment. Conclusions Patients who present with a non-union after a displaced olecranon fracture managed non-operatively have reasonable elbow function and uncommonly request operative treatment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.304 · 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.

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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueShoulder & ElbowSame topicElbow and Forearm Trauma TreatmentFrench-language works237,207