Hook-Plate Fixation in Patients with Acute Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation Improved Radiographic But Not Clinical Outcomes Compared with Nonoperative Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society. Multicenter randomized clinical trial of nonoperative versus operative treatment of acute acromio-clavicular joint dislocation. J Orthop Trauma. 2015 Nov;29(11):479-87. ### Question: In patients with high-grade, acute acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocation, does operative repair with hook-plate fixation improve patient outcomes more than nonoperative treatment? ### Design: Randomized (allocation concealed), unblinded, controlled trial with 2 years of follow-up and intention-to-treat analysis. ### Setting: 11 hospitals in Canada. ### Patients: 83 patients 16 to 60 years of age (mean age, 38 years; 94% men) who had a closed, complete (Rockwood grade-III to V) AC joint dislocation and were recruited ≤28 days after the injury. Exclusion criteria included previous surgery on the injured shoulder, scapulothoracic dissociation, vascular or ipsilateral shoulder injury, coracoid process fracture of the injured shoulder, or limited life expectancy. >80% of patients were assessed for secondary outcomes at 1 year; 1 year. ### Intervention: Operative repair (n = 40) or nonoperative treatment (n = 43). Operative repair was done ≤28 days after the injury and included anatomic …
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".