MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120532095 · doi:10.1155/2013/867250

Social Support Contributes to Outcomes following Distal Radius Fractures

2013· article· en· W2120532095 on OpenAlexafffund
Caitlin Symonette, Joy C. MacDermid, Ruby Grewal

Bibliographic record

VenueRehabilitation Research and Practice · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineRADIUSComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Distal radius fractures are the most common fracture of the upper extremity and cause variable disability. This study examined the role of social support in patient-reported pain and disability at one year following distal radius fracture. Methods. The Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey was administered to a prospective cohort of 291 subjects with distal radius fractures at their baseline visit. Pearson correlations and stepwise linear regression models (F-to-remove 0.10) were used to identify whether social support contributes to wrist fracture outcomes. The primary outcome of pain and disability at one year was measured using the Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation. Results. Most injuries were low energy (67.5%) and were treated nonoperatively (71.9%). Pearson correlation analysis revealed that higher reported social support correlated with improved Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation scores at 1 year, r(n = 181) = -0.22, P < 0.05. Of the subscales within the Social Support Survey, emotional/informational support explained a significant proportion of the variance in 1-year Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation scores, R (2) = 4.7%, F (1, 181) = 9.98, P < 0.05. Conclusion. Lower emotional/informational social support at the time of distal radius fracture contributes a small but significant percentage to patient-reported pain and disability outcomes.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.406 · 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.

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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRehabilitation Research and PracticeSame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207