MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2231386133

[The treatment and complications of intraarticular fractures of the distal radius].

2003· article· en· W2231386133 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Romas Jonas Kalesinskas, Nerijus Varnas, Gintautas Mickevicius, Tomas Trakinis

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWristBandageDistal radius fractureSurgeryWrist painLigament
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: The purpose of this trial was to determine the rate of complications and the cause of complications after intraarticular fractures of the distal radius. We examined those patients, who had intraarticular fractures of the distal radius and who were treated in Kaunas University of Medicine Hospital and Kaunas Red Cross hospital in 1998-2000. The evaluation of results was made by movement of the joint and pain in the wrist, which was evaluated by pain scale and McGill pain questionnaire. Palmar slope, radial inclination and radial length were evaluated rentgenologically. Distal radioulnar joint was evaluated as well (with evaluation of scapholunate ligament condition). Patients were investigated 1.5 and 2 years after fracture. RESULTS: There are more secondary dislocations and the shortening of radius in group that was treated by gypsum bandage. Good distraction of fracture ends is seen using external fixation, but strain of soft tissue gives complications: contraction of fingers, and instability of wrist. The incongruence of joint surface causes early arthrosis and pain. The injury of ligaments in the wrist, which can be seen by X-ray examination, causes instability of wrist and chronic pain.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→