Indirect reduction and percutaneous fixation <i>versus</i> open reduction and internal fixation for displaced intra-articular fractures of the distal radius
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 179 adult patients with displaced intra-articular fractures of the distal radius was randomised to receive indirect percutaneous reduction and external fixation (n = 88) or open reduction and internal fixation (n = 91). Patients were followed up for two years. During the first year the upper limb musculoskeletal function assessment score, the SF-36 bodily pain sub-scale score, the overall Jebsen score, pinch strength and grip strength improved significantly in all patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the radiological restoration of anatomical features or the range of movement between the groups. During the period of two years, patients who underwent indirect reduction and percutaneous fixation had a more rapid return of function and a better functional outcome than those who underwent open reduction and internal fixation, provided that the intra-articular step and gap deformity were minimised.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it