Orthopaedic Injury Profiles in Methamphetamine Users: A Retrospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We sought to characterize the prevalence of methamphetamine (MA) abuse and associated orthopaedic injury patterns at our level 1 trauma center. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of all orthopaedic consults for the year 2016. Patients were classified as MA users based on urine toxicology results and social history. RESULTS: The prevalence of MA use was 10.0%. MA users were more likely to present with hand lacerations and other infections (P < 0.05 for all). Regarding the mechanism of injury, MA users were more likely to be involved in automobile versus pedestrian, automobile versus bicycle, ballistic, knife, closed fist, other assault/altercation, and animal bite injuries (P < 0.05 for all). DISCUSSION: MA use is prevalent at our level 1 trauma center. The prevalence and injury patterns of MA abuse warrant deeper study into the effects of this drug on orthopaedic outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".