MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125435439 · doi:10.1503/cjs.012311

Locked plate fixation of the comminuted distal fibula: a biomechanical study

2013· article· en· W2125435439 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Neil J. White, David T. Corr, James Wagg, Caeley Lorincz, Richard Buckley

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryFoothills Medical CentreSaint John Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkleOrthodonticsStiffnessFixation (population genetics)FibulaCadaverPlating (geology)BiomechanicsBridge (graph theory)SurgeryStructural engineeringTibiaAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of locked versus nonlocked lateral fibular bridge plating of comminuted, unstable ankle fractures in a mode of catastrophic failure. METHODS: We created comminuted Weber C fractures in 8 paired limbs from fresh cadavers. Fractures were plated with either standard or locked one-third tubular bridge plating techniques. Specimens were biomechanically evaluated by external rotation to failure while subjected to a compressive load approximating body weight. We measured the angle to failure, torque to failure, energy to failure and construct stiffness. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in construct stiffness or other biomechanical properties between locked and standard one-third tubular plating techniques. CONCLUSION: We found no difference in biomechanical properties between locked and standard bridge plating of a comminuted Weber C fibular fracture in a model of catastrophic failure. It is likely that augmentation of fixation with K-wires or transtibial screws provides a construct superior to locked bridge plating alone. Further biomechanical and clinical analysis is required to improve understanding of the role of locked plating in ankle fractures and in osteoporotic bone.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.195 · 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.

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

Citations37
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207