Assessment of functional outcomes of surgically managed acetabular fractures
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: We performed a systematic review of the literature pertaining to the functional outcomes of the surgical management of acetabular fractures. A total of 69 articles met our inclusion criteria, revealing that eight generic outcome instruments were used, along with five specific instruments. The majority of studies reported outcomes using a version of the d'Aubigne and Postel score, which has not been validated for use in acetabular fracture. Few validated outcome measures were reported. No psychometric testing of outcome instruments was performed. The current assessment of outcomes in surgery for acetabular fractures lacks scientific rigour, and does not give reliable outcome data for either scientific comparison or patient counselling. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: The use of non-validated functional outcome measures is a major limitation of the current literature pertaining to surgical management of acetabular fractures; future studies should use validated outcome measures to ensure the legitimacy of the reported results. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:690-5.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 it