Clavicular Refracture at the Site of Angular Malunion in Young Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The treatment of midshaft clavicle fractures has, in the last 2 decades, shifted markedly towards operative management. Prospective trials have defined accepted clinical and radiographic indications for the surgical management of clavicle fractures. This report documents 3 cases of clinically united angular malunion of the midshaft clavicle in young athletes that subsequently refractured to highlight angular deformity in the absence of displacement as a potential indication for surgical fixation. DESIGN: Case series. SETTING: A level 1 trauma centre. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Three young athletic patients with angular malunion of the midshaft clavicle who experienced refracture, requiring surgical fixation. INTERVENTION: Surgical fixation of midshaft clavicle fracture, as treatment for refracture after angular malunion. RESULTS: All 3 patients required subsequent surgical fixation of their midshaft clavicle fracture, correcting the angular malunion and restoring shoulder function. CONCLUSIONS: Midshaft clavicular fractures that malunite with significant angulation in the absence of displacement represent a risk for subsequent refracture. For this reason, angular deformity should be considered as a potential indication for surgical fixation in acute clavicular fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".