MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333969703 · doi:10.1097/bpb.0b013e32832f5abb

Intramedullary nailing for metacarpal 2–5 fractures

2009· article· en· W2333969703 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics B · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsPediatric Oncology Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntramedullary rodMetacarpal bonesOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twenty-eight patients with 31 closed fractures (27 acute fractures and four with malalignment after conservative treatment) of the metacarpal bones 2-5 were treated with only one elastic stable intramedullary nail and followed prospectively. Treatment protocol was without immobilization or physiotherapy. These patients were reviewed at a mean follow-up time of 15 months for ultrasound results as well as functional outcome concerning complications, pain, range of motion, and grip strength measured with a Vernier-Dynamometer. Satisfaction of the patients was investigated by Clients Satisfaction Questionnaire. Radiographs before nail removal, ultrasound, and clinical examination always showed complete union of the fracture without deviation of axis. All patients gained full range of motion without any limits in daily activity and sports. There was no loss of grip strength compared with the other hand. Patients' satisfaction was very high, especially because of almost no postoperative pain and lack of immobilization. This method can be offered as an effective and safe alternative in the treatment of closed displaced fractures of the 2-5 metacarpus without significant complications.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.295 · 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