Patient Reported Pain and Disability Following a Distal Radius Fracture: A Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fractures of the distal radius are common. Few studies investigating the extended long term outcomes of participants following a distal radius fracture (especially beyond 2 years) and they have relied on subjective measures or single objective tests to measure participant's final outcome. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe the pain and disability in long-term follow-up of participants after a distal radius fracture. Participants who had previously participated in a prospective study, where baseline and standardized one-year follow-up were performed, were contacted to volunteer to participate in this follow-up (FU) study. Sixty-five participants (17 males, 48 females) with an average age of 57 (SD 13) years at the time of injury and 67 (SD 13 years) at follow-up were evaluated at an average of 11(SD 6) years (range 2-20 years). RESULTS: The majority of patients (85%) participants reported no change or had less pain and disability (PRWE) (<5 point difference) at their long-term follow-up compared to their one year PRWE scores. One year PRWE scores were found to be predictive (19.1%) of the variability in long term PRWE score (p=0.02). Age, gender, and mechanism of fall were not significant predictors of worsened outcome. CONCLUSION: The majority of people that are experiencing no or low patient reported pain and disability one year following a DRF can expect to retain their positive outcome 10-20 years later. This study did not identify how to predict worsened outcome.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".