Outcomes after orthopedic trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical orthopedic research needs better ability to assess patient expectations with regard to orthopedic trauma surgery outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate to which extent patient expectations prior to surgery could be met after surgery. METHODS: Patients (≥18 years) with surgical ankle fractures were prospectively recruited at 5 orthopedic trauma clinics in the United States (USA), Canada, and Brazil and followed up for 12 months. Patients were asked to complete a previously validated trauma expectation factor (TEF) questionnaire prior to surgery and a trauma outcome measure (TOM) 1 year after surgery. RESULTS: At 1 year, 155 patients had provided complete records. Almost half (49%; 76/155) had a 1-year TOM score equaling or exceeding their preoperative TEF score (95% CI: 41-57%). The remaining scores failed to meet patient expectations. TOM scores matched or exceeded patient expectations for 33% of patients in the USA and 47% in Canada, but for 69% in Brazil ( p = 0.001 (USA); p = 0.024 (Canada)). This geographical effect was attributable to higher patient expectations in North America as compared to Brazil (average TEF scores: 36 (North America) versus 31 (Brazil); p < 0.001). Patients with lower household income or smokers were more likely to be satisfied with their treatment ( p = 0.02 and p = 0.05, respectively). Furthermore, patients with severe type C fractures had better rates of satisfaction (62%) than patients with simpler B (50%) or type A fractures (33%) ( p = 0.01 [C type versus A type]). CONCLUSIONS: Orthopedic surgeons have difficulty in meeting or exceeding presurgical patient expectations of long-term outcomes for ankle fracture surgery. This study provides evidence that culture, geography, and surgeon-patient communication have considerable influence on patient expectations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".