European validation of the Vancouver classification of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Vancouver classification has been shown by its developers to be a valid and reliable method for categorising the configuration of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures and for planning their management. We have re-validated this classification system independently using the radiographs of 30 patients with periprosthetic fractures. These were reviewed by six experienced consultant orthopaedic surgeons, six trainee surgeons and six medical students in order to assess intra- and interobserver reliability and reproducibility. Each observer read the radiographs on two separate occasions. The results were subjected to weighted kappa statistical analysis. The respective kappa values for interobserver agreement were 0.72 and 0.74 for consultants, 0.68 and 0.70 for trainees on the first and second readings of the radiographs and 0.61 for medical students. The intra-observer agreement for the consultants was 0.64 and 0.67, for the trainees 0.61 and 0.64, and for the medical students 0.59 and 0.60 for the first and second readings, respectively. The validity of the classification was studied by comparing the pre-operative radiological findings within B subgroups with the operative findings. This revealed agreement for 77% of these type-B fractures, with a kappa value of 0.67. Our data confirm the reliability and reproducibility of this classification system in a European setting and for inexperienced staff. This is a reliable system which can be used by non-experts, between centres and across continents.
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 | 0.031 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".