MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124084302 · doi:10.1302/0301-620x.88b12.17309

Predictors of clinical and radiological outcome in patients with fractures of the acetabulum and concomitant posterior dislocation of the hip

2006· article· en· W2124084302 on OpenAlexaff
Mohit Bhandari, Joel M. Matta, Tania A. Ferguson, Gary A. Matthys

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic and Acetabular Injuries
Canadian institutionsHamilton General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcetabulumRadiological weaponReduction (mathematics)ConcomitantProspective cohort studySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We aimed to identify variables associated with clinical and radiological outcome following fractures of the acetabulum associated with posterior dislocation of the hip. Using a prospective database of 1076 such fractures, we identified 109 patients with this combined injury managed operatively within three weeks and followed up for two or more years. The patients had a mean age of 42 years (15 to 79), 78 (72%) were male, and 84 (77%) had been involved in motor vehicle accidents. Using multivariate analysis the quality of reduction of the fracture was identified as the only significant predictor of radiological grade, clinical function and the development of post-traumatic arthritis (p < 0.001). All patients lacking anatomical reduction developed arthritis whereas only 25.5% (24 patients) with an anatomical reduction did so (p = 0.05). The quality of the reduction of the fracture is the most important variable in forecasting the outcome for patients with this injury. The interval to reduction of the dislocation of the hip may be less important than previously described.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations144
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British VolumeSame topicPelvic and Acetabular InjuriesFrench-language works237,207