MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318423972 · doi:10.1097/bot.0b013e318214ded1

Closed Reduction and Early Mobilization in Fractures of the Humeral Capitellum

2011· article· en· W2318423972 on OpenAlexaff
Shannon Puloski, Kyle Kemp, David M Sheps, Kevin A. Hildebrand, John Donaghy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElbow and Forearm Trauma Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineElbowRange of motionReduction (mathematics)Internal fixationRadiographySurgeryPatient satisfactionUpper limb

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seven consecutive patients with an isolated fracture of the humeral capitellum were treated by a single surgeon at a Level II care facility according to a simple treatment algorithm. Closed reduction was attempted in all cases using a standard technique. After reduction, the arm was splinted at 90° of flexion and mobilized at 14 days. All patients completed a clinical and radiographic follow-up consisting of a radiographic evaluation of reduction, elbow range of motion, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire, and a subjective rating of patient satisfaction. None of the patients required conversion to open reduction internal fixation or excision. Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire scores ranged from 6 to 13 points (out of 100; mean, 9). The mean flexion/extension arc of motion obtained was 126° with minimal loss of rotation. Patient satisfaction was rated as excellent in five patients and good in two. All fractures appeared united at the most recent clinical and radiographic review. Closed reduction and early mobilization appears to be a safe and effective method of treating displaced fractures of the humeral capitellum with clinical results comparable to that of open reduction internal fixation.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations34
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic TraumaSame topicElbow and Forearm Trauma TreatmentFrench-language works237,207