Elbow Dislocations in a Canadian Metropolitan Health Region: A 3-Year Population-Based Incidence Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There are no current North American population-based incidence studies of elbow dislocations. This creates further challenges in assessing associated outcomes and complication rates. The present study aimed to determine the population-based incidence of elbow dislocations in a large Canadian city. Methods From April 2002 to March, 2005, consecutive cases of elbow dislocation were documented. Age-specific, gender-specific and age-adjusted rates for simple and complex dislocations were calculated according to patient demographic and 2001 Canadian census data. All rates were reported per 10,000 persons per year. Results One hundred thirty-seven dislocations (53 simple and 84 complex) were identified. Simple dislocations occurred at a rate of 0.262 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.191 to 0.332). Fracture-dislocations occurred at a rate of 0.415 (95% CI = 0.326 to 0.504). The overall age-adjusted incidence was 0.671 (95% CI = 0.638 to 0.704). With the exception of the 18 years to 29 years (rate = 0.916, 95% CI = 0.648 to 1.183) and ≥80 years groups (rate = 0.906, 95% CI = 0.112 to 1.700), all age groups had an approximate rate of 0.600. Discussion The results obtained in the present study are similar to those obtained in a previous European study. True population-based estimates of elbow dislocation incidence are provided, which may facilitate the assessment of outcomes and complication rates of such injuries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".