A Fragment-Specific Approach to Type IID Monteggia Elbow Fracture–Dislocations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the pattern of injury, surgical technique, and outcomes of Monteggia Type IID fracture dislocations. DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected clinical and radiographic patient data in an orthopaedic trauma database. SETTING: Level I university-based trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: All patients with Monteggia Type IID fracture-dislocations admitted from January 2000 to July 2005. INTERVENTION: Review of patient demographics, fracture pattern, method of fixation, complications, additional surgical procedures, and clinical and radiographic outcome measures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Clinical outcomes: elbow range of motion, complications. Radiographic outcomes: characteristic fracture fragments, quality of fracture reduction, healing time, degenerative changes, and heterotopic ossification. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were included in the study. All fractures united. There were six complications in six patients, including three contractures with associated heterotopic ossification, one pronator syndrome and late radial nerve palsy, one radial head collapse, and one with prominent hardware. CONCLUSIONS: Monteggia IID fracture-dislocations are complex injuries with typical specific fracture fragments. Anatomic fixation of all injury components and avoidance of complications where possible can lead to a good outcome in these challenging injuries.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".