Deficits Following Nonoperative Treatment of Displaced Midshaft Clavicular Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Displaced fractures of the midpart of the clavicular shaft are generally treated nonoperatively, and few functional deficits have been reported. Whereas prior investigators have presented radiographic and surgeon-based outcomes, we used a patient-based outcome questionnaire and objective muscle-strength testing to evaluate a series of patients who had received nonoperative care for a displaced midshaft fracture of the clavicle. METHODS: We identified thirty patients (twenty-two men and eight women with a mean age of thirty-seven years) who had sustained a displaced midshaft fracture of the clavicle. All patients were treated nonoperatively. At a mean of fifty-five months, and a minimum of twelve months, outcomes were measured with the Constant shoulder score and the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) patient questionnaire. In addition, objective shoulder muscle-strength testing was performed with the Baltimore Therapeutic Equipment Work Simulator, with the uninjured arm serving as a control. RESULTS: The range of motion was well maintained, with flexion averaging 170 degrees +/- 20 degrees and abduction averaging 165 degrees +/- 25 degrees . Compared with the strength of the uninjured shoulder, the strength of the injured shoulder was reduced to 81% for maximum flexion, 75% for endurance of flexion, 82% for maximum abduction, 67% for endurance of abduction, 81% for maximum external rotation, 82% for endurance of external rotation, 85% for maximum internal rotation, and 78% for endurance of internal rotation (p < 0.05 for all values). The mean Constant score was 71 points, and the mean DASH score was 24.6 points, indicating substantial residual disability. CONCLUSIONS: Traditionally, good results with minimal functional deficits have been reported following nonoperative treatment of clavicular fractures. However, surgeon-based methods of evaluation may be insensitive to loss of muscle strength. We detected residual deficits in shoulder strength and endurance in this patient population, which may be related to the significant level of dysfunction detected by the patient-based outcome measures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".