Determinants of Functional Outcome in Distal Radius Fractures in High-Functioning Patients Older Than 55 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the influence of treatment and radiographic parameters on patient-reported functional outcomes on a population of non-frail elderly with distal radius fractures. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Patients older than 55 years presenting with a distal radius fracture and a Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale score of 1 or 2. INTERVENTION: Closed reduction and casting or open reduction and internal fixation as per the treating surgeons' decision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Radiographic scores at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks, as well as Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, Short Form 36, and Patient-Reported Wrist Evaluation scores up to 1 year after injury. Univariate analysis and linear regression analysis were performed on outcome measures. RESULTS: No difference exists in outcomes based on treatment choice. Patients with ulnar positivity greater than 2 mm at baseline, after treatment, and at final follow-up had worse patient-reported scores at 1 year. Persistent articular gaps and/or steps greater than 2 mm after treatment were also associated with worse patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSION: Even in high-functioning patients older than 55 years, there was no difference in patient-reported outcomes at 1 year in the open reduction group as compared with the closed reduction group. Instead, physicians should pay particular attention to radial shortening and persistent articular gaps following their chosen treatment plan for distal radial fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".