Linking of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Distal Radius Fracture Clinical Practice Guidelines to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health; International Classification of Diseases; and ICF Core Sets for Hand Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) distal radius fracture (DRF) clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are readily available to clinicians, patients, and policymakers. International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) provides a framework for describing the impact of health conditions. The International Classification of Diseases–10th Revision (ICD-10) is a classification system to classify health conditions as specific disease or disorders. The aim of this study is to analyze and describe the scope and focus of the AAOS DRF CPG using the ICF and ICD-10 as a basis for content analysis, and to compare the content of the CPG with the ICF hand core sets as the reference standard. Methods: Established linking rules were used by 2 independent raters to analyze the 29 recommendations of the AAOS DRF CPG. ICD-10 codes were assigned in the same process. Summary linkage statistics were used to describe the results for ICF and the hand core sets. Results: Among the 29 recommendations of the AAOS DRF CPG, 5 meaningful concepts were linked to the ICF codes. Of these, 5 codes appeared on the comprehensive ICF core set and only 3 codes appeared in the brief ICF core set, and 7 conditions were covered in ICD-10 codes. Conclusions: The AAOS DRF CPG focuses on surgical interventions and has minimal linkage to the constructs of the ICD-10 and ICF. It does not address activity or participation (disability), and is not well linked to key concepts relevant to hand conditions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.121 | 0.444 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".