Devastating Impact of Fracture Nonunions: The Need for Timely Identification and Intervention for High-Risk Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Journal publishes corrections when they are of significance to patient care, scientific data or record-keeping, or authorship, whether that error was made by an author, editor, or staff. Errata also appear in the online version and are attached to files downloaded from jbjs.org. In the article entitled “Factors Affecting Length of Stay, Readmission, and Revision After Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Population-Based Study” (2015 Aug 5;97[15]:), two footnotes in Table II on page 1261 were incorrectly transposed and one table entry on page 1260 had the incorrect footnote symbol. Specifically, “†Cutpoints defining the five categories for facility volume and surgeon volume are the 10th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles of the counts of procedures in the year prior to the index arthroplasty. This approach was chosen as a practical strategy for a categorical parameterization of likely nonlinear relationships of these factors with the three outcomes. ‡The indicators for the diagnoses and the specific comorbidities do not define mutually exclusive categories as patients can have multiple diagnoses and comorbidities. All of the other categorical factors in this table (sex, age, race, insurance type, Charlson Comorbidity Index, facility and surgeon case volumes) are coded with mutually exclusive levels.” should have read “†The indicators for the diagnoses and the specific comorbidities do not define mutually exclusive categories as patients can have multiple diagnoses and comorbidities. All of the other categorical factors in this table (sex, age, race, insurance type, Charlson Comorbidity Index, facility and surgeon case volumes) are coded with mutually exclusive levels. ‡Cutpoints defining the five categories for facility volume and surgeon volume are the 10th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles of the counts of procedures in the year prior to the index arthroplasty. This approach was chosen as a practical strategy for a categorical parameterization of likely nonlinear relationships of these factors with the three outcomes.” and “Specific comorbidities‡” should have read as “Specific comorbidities†”.
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 | 0.003 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".