MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2200766187 · doi:10.1177/229255030901700401

A Comparison of Outcomes Between Immediate and Delayed Repair of Mandibular Fractures

2009· article· en· W2200766187 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Leland Shayne Webb, Sumeet Makhijani, Manish Khanna, Mark J Burstein, Arthur N. Falk, Dimitri J. Koumanis, Jerome D. Chao

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plastic Surgery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Trauma and Fracture Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOtorhinolaryngologyEtiologyComplicationDemographicsSurgeryMandibular fractureMedical recordSubstance abuseMandible (arthropod mouthpart)DentistryOral and maxillofacial surgeryInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical records of patients treated with surgical repair of mandible fractures by the otolaryngology and plastic surgery departments at a level 1 trauma centre were obtained and reviewed. Two study groups were compared: patients treated within 72 h of the injury and those treated after this time period. Patient demographics, time to repair, fracture types, substance abuse history, etiology, surgical management, complications and length of hospital stay were assessed. The complication rate was 41% (n=7) within the immediate group and 38% (n=6) within the delayed group (P=0.56). Complications were prevalent in patients with history of substance abuse in both groups. Complication rates did not increase when repair of mandible fractures was delayed beyond 72 h, while substance abuse was a factor in increasing complications rates. Outpatient triage with elective repair of isolated mandibular fractures appears to be more cost-effective than admission with inpatient management.

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)0.005
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
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations37
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plastic SurgerySame topicFacial Trauma and Fracture ManagementFrench-language works237,207