MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157215995 · doi:10.1136/emj.2008.062943

Driving with a forearm plaster cast: patients' perspective

2009· article· en· W2157215995 on OpenAlexaff
Myles Edwards, N. Cameron Hatrick

Bibliographic record

VenueEmergency Medicine Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineForearmWristConcussionPhysical therapyPoison controlInjury preventionSurgeryMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Forearm plaster casts are commonly used in orthopaedic practice for the treatment of fractures of the wrist and carpal bones. A common question put by patients seeks to clarify suitability to drive a motor vehicle. DVLA guidelines do not specifically comment about temporary immobilisation in a cast. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 248 adult patients who had recently been treated in Colles' or scaphoid-type casts to determine the driving habits of the patients and their attitudes to the legality and safety of driving with a cast. RESULTS: Of those who responded, 87% considered it unsafe to drive a car with a plaster cast. 79% thought it should be illegal. Only 9% of patients reported driving while immobilised, and these tended to be young men who did not inform any authority. Previous literature is confusing and there appears to be little consensus among orthopaedic surgeons about letting these patients drive. Clarification is reported from the Medical Advisory Group at the DVLA and the Head of Road Policing Business Area for the Association of Chief Police Officers. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that all medical professionals advise their patients that they should not drive while immobilised in an upper limb plaster cast.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.381 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmergency Medicine JournalSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207