MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2926842971 · doi:10.5435/jaaos-d-17-00706

Modern Implant Options for the Treatment of Distal Femur Fractures

2019· review· en· W2926842971 on OpenAlexaff
Mark E. Hake, Max E. Davis, Aaron M. Perdue, James A. Goulet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsObject Research Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMalunionNonunionIntramedullary rodFemurFemur fractureImplantBone healingSurgeryFixation (population genetics)PopulationOrthodontics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distal femur fractures occur in a periarticular fracture pattern and disproportionately afflict an aging population. Although the goals of treatment have not changed, the emergence of new surgical techniques and devices has recently been developed and refined to treat this challenging fracture pattern. Treatment options include open reduction and internal fixation with periarticular locking plates, intramedullary nails, or distal femur replacement. Despite rapid adoption, these modern solutions display a concerning complication rate, specifically from nonunion and malunion. The indications for each of these treatment strategies are not well defined and are the subject of current debate. As with the use of any orthopaedic implant, the knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of each construct is paramount to successful treatment of these fractures. Recently, as the understanding of the biomechanics of distal femur fracture healing has improved, the literature has demonstrated clinical and theoretical improvements in the outcomes after distal femur fracture repair.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations100
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic SurgeonsSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207