MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322023856 · doi:10.1097/bth.0b013e31825bd4da

Nail Hooks and Elastic Bands External Dynamic Traction for Fractures of the Proximal Interphalangeal Joint

2012· article· en· W2322023856 on OpenAlexaff
Farhaj Siddiqui, Shahan Hossain, Nasimul Huq

Bibliographic record

VenueTechniques in Hand and Upper Extremity Surgery · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of NiagaraNiagara College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterphalangeal JointMedicineTraction (geology)PhalanxRange of motionOrthodonticsProximal phalanxNail (fastener)Ulnar deviationJoint (building)SurgeryStructural engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intra-articular fractures of the proximal interphalangeal joint remain a treatment challenge for hand specialists. The purpose of this investigation was to review the results of 12 patients, 6 men and 6 women (average age, 21 y), who were treated using the nail hooks and elastic bands external dynamic traction technique for their intra-articular proximal interphalangeal joint fractures. Of the total 12 fractures, 6 involved the proximal phalanx and 6 involved the middle phalanx. The final arc of motion at the proximal interphalangeal joint averaged 89 degrees (range, 25 to 111 degrees). At the conclusion of treatment: 1 patient developed a radial deviation and 1 developed a slight ulnar deviation. All patients were able to return to their preinjury level of functioning. Nail hooks and elastic bands external dynamic traction provides an effective treatment for intra-articular proximal interphalangeal joint fractures. It is an inexpensive, easily applied, nonoperative method of treatment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechniques in Hand and Upper Extremity SurgerySame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207