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

Intramedullary nailing for metacarpal 2–5 fractures

2009· article· en· W2333969703 on OpenAlexaff
Martin M. Kaiser, Kianusch Tafazzoli, Till-M. Theilen, Arndt‐Peter Schulz, Andreas Paech, Lucas M. Wessel

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

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 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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics BSame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207