MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118764109 · doi:10.1177/230949900601400316

Comminuted Simultaneous Bilateral Tibial Tubercle Avulsion Fractures: A Case Report

2006· article· en· W2118764109 on OpenAlexaff
GP Slobogean, Kishore Mulpuri, CM Alvarez, C. Reilly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of orthopaedic surgery · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTubercleAvulsionSurgeryReduction (mathematics)DeformityInternal fixation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 16-year-old male had simultaneous bilateral tibial tubercle avulsion fractures after making a sudden stop while running at full speed. The left knee injury (type V) was minimally displaced, was treated conservatively with closed reduction, and the patient recovered uneventfully. The right tibial tubercle injury was unusual. The tuberosity and anterior aspect of the proximal epiphysis remained as one, but there was severe intra-articular comminution posterior to the displaced tubercle fragment. The right knee injury (type III) required open reduction and internal fixation to reduce the apophyseal fragment and 2 intra-articular displaced fragments. The patient's recovery was complicated by a severe, persistent flexion deformity on the right side. Eventually, the patient required manipulation under anaesthesia, extensive continuous passive mobilisation and a turnbuckle extension splint. A residual 5-degree flexion deformity remained at 16 months post-injury. This case highlights the importance of identifying any intra-articular fragments, their careful anatomical reduction, and aggressive mobilisation when treating tibial tubercle avulsion fractures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0070.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations17
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of orthopaedic surgerySame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207