Nonoperative management of a patient with a two-part minimally displaced proximal humerus fracture: A case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proximal humerus fractures account for up to 10% of all fractures; however, the literature lacks any detailed nonoperative management protocols or treatment progression guidelines that are based on large randomized controlled trials. Several studies support conservative treatment of minimally displaced fractures, yet they do not document the specific interventions used nor do they provide rationale for progression. This case report describes the conservative rehabilitation of a patient following a traumatic, minimally displaced, two-part proximal humerus fracture. The patient was a 58-year-old female who was referred to physical therapy 4 weeks following arm sling immobilization with the primary goal of returning to full-time employment as a retail associate. Outcome measures included the McGill Pain Questionnaire, a numeric pain rating scale, and goniometric range of motion. Upon discharge the patient had zero complaints of pain, improved range of motion, and increased strength, and she returned to her prior level of function. The interventions used along with rationale are described in detail. The plan of care for this patient may be used as a framework for further research to determine the true effectiveness of nonoperative treatment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".