Primary Care Physician Follow-up of Distal Radius Buckle Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our main objective was to determine the proportion of children referred to a primary care provider (PCP) for follow-up of a distal radius buckle fracture who subsequently did not deviate from this reassessment strategy. METHODS: This prospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary care pediatric emergency department (ED). Eligible children were aged 2 to 17 years with a distal radius buckle fracture treated with a removable splint and referred to the PCP for reassessment. We telephoned families 28 days after their ED visit. The primary outcome was the proportion who received PCP follow-up exclusively. We also measured the proportion who received PCP anticipatory guidance and those children who reported returning to usual activities "always" by 4 weeks. RESULTS: We enrolled 200 children, and 180 (90.0%) received telephone follow-up. Of these, 157 (87.2% [95% confidence interval: 82.3 to 92.1]) received PCP follow-up exclusively. Specifically, 11 (6.1%) families opted out of physician follow-up, 5 (2.8%) self-referred to an ED, and the PCP requested specialty consultation in 7 (3.9%) cases. Of the 164 with a PCP visit, 77 (47.0%) parents received anticipatory guidance on return to activities for their child, and 162 (98.8%) reported return to usual activities within 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of children with distal radius buckle fractures presented to the PCP for follow-up and did not receive additional orthopedic surgeon or ED consultations. Despite a suboptimal rate of PCP advice on return to activities, almost all parents reported full return to usual activities within 4 weeks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".