MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2209955656 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.k.01665

Should I Ever Fix a Clavicular Fracture?

2012· letter· en· W2209955656 on OpenAlex
William T. Obremskey

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder and Clavicle Injuries
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalunionDashMedicineNonunionSurgeryRandomized controlled trialClavicleInternal fixationProspective cohort studyFixation (population genetics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary In their meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, McKee et al. offer a welcome and thorough analysis of the controversial topic of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. McKee was the lead investigator on a prospective randomized clinical trial by the Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society (COTS) study that was published in January 2007 in JBJS and that is included in this analysis1. Since the publication of that study, it has been my observation that some surgeons have used the results of that study—specifically, that, overall, patients have improved function at all time periods of analysis—to justify the overutilization of internal fixation of displaced clavicular fractures. This manuscript thoroughly evaluates the six prospective randomized trials that are available for analysis. The summation of the data indicates, as McKee et al. note, that approximately 75% of all patients with a nonoperatively treated, 100% displaced midshaft clavicular fracture will have essentially normal motion, with full fracture union, normal strength, and normal outcome scores of the upper extremity, and that there is an overall minimal difference in function between operative and nonoperative groups as measured with use of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and Constant scores. Approximately 15% of patients with nonoperatively treated fractures will have a nonunion and 10% will have a symptomatic malunion. It is not surprising that there is essentially no difference in the functional outcomes scores with use of the DASH or the Constant score for these two cohorts of patients. If 75% of nonoperatively treated patients heal with few or no symptoms, this large percentage will blunt any effects of the two treatment groups when considered on the whole. This manuscript can be utilized to give patients with a 100% displaced midshaft clavicular fracture the reasonable advice that they have a 75% chance of having no residual symptoms and normal shoulder function. We need to be able to better predict which patients are at risk of developing a nonunion and/or symptomatic malunion after this injury. In their 2007 paper, McKee et al. found that patients with a “droopy” shoulder may be the ones most likely to be at risk of developing symptoms from a midshaft clavicular fracture. Hopefully, further work will help define the patients who would truly benefit from early surgical intervention. McKee is to be congratulated for his part in the initial study and for his clear view of this timely topic.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.281 · 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