MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903690494 · doi:10.1097/bot.0000000000001365

Biomechanics of Femoral Neck Fractures and Implications for Fixation

2018· review· en· W2903690494 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Augat, Emily K. Bliven, Simon Hackl

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsSmiths Detection (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntramedullary rodFemoral neckBiomechanicsFixation (population genetics)TrochanterFemurReduction (mathematics)Greater trochanterOrthodonticsInternal fixationOsteosynthesisImplantSurgeryOsteoporosisAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fractures of the femoral neck can occur in young healthy individuals due to high loads occurring during motor vehicle accidents, impacts, or falls. Failure forces are lower if impacts occur sideways onto the greater trochanter as compared with vertical loading of the hip. Bone density, bone geometry, and thickness of cortical bone at the femoral neck contribute to its mechanical strength. Femoral neck fractures in young adults require accurate reduction and stable internal fixation. The available techniques for fracture fixation at the femoral neck (cannulated screws, hip screw systems, proximal femur plates, and cephallomedullary nails) are reviewed with respect to their competence to provide biomechanical stability. Mechanically unstable fractures require a load-bearing implant, such as hip screws, with antirotational screws or intramedullary nails. Subcapital or transcervical fracture patterns and noncomminuted fractures enable load sharing and can be securely fixed with cannulated screws or solitary hip screw systems without compromising fixation stability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations146
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic TraumaSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207