FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME IN COMBINED PELVIC AND ACETABULAR FRACTURES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate functional outcome in patients with combined pelvic and acetabular fractures and to identify factors associated with outcome. One hundred and fifteen patients were identified. 63% were male; mean age was thirty-seven years; mean ISS was thirty. Three patients died from their injuries. At a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, patients exhibited profound functional deficits compared to the normal population. Those with an acetabular fracture involving the posterior wall or an associated lower extremity injury have a particularly poor prognosis. Combined pelvic and acetabular injuries are associated with high mortality and functional morbidity irrespective of treatment. To evaluate functional outcome in patients with combined pelvic and acetabular fractures and to identify factors associated with outcome. Combined pelvic and acetabular injuries are associated with high mortality and functional morbidity irrespective of treatment. These results will allow us to further investigate which injury is dictating prognosis in the combined injury – the pelvic or the acetabular fracture. One-hundred and fifteen patients with combined pelvic and acetabular injuries were identified at a level One trauma centre. 63% were male; mean age was thirty-seven years (13–88); mean ISS was thirty (16–75). Three patients died from their injuries. 16% involved bilateral pelvic fractures; 7% bilateral acetabular fractures; and for 2%, both were bilateral. 64% were Tile B and 34% were Tile C. Most acetabular fractures involved the anterior column or both column. Only 18% were treated with ORIF for both injuries. 25% had ORIF of their acetabulum and 14% had ORIF on their pelvis. Sixty-five patients completed validated functional outcome questionnaires at a mean follow-up of 3.5 (one to eleven) years. Patient function was significantly compromised with a mean MFA score of 33.8 (SD 21.8). Function was worse for all 8 SF-36 domains and the two component scores compared to the health status of the Canadian normal population (p Funding: Grant funded from AO/ASIF
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".