Ankle Fractures: An Expert Survey of Orthopaedic Trauma Association Members and Evidence-Based Treatment Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe current practice patterns of orthopaedic trauma experts regarding the management of ankle fractures, to review the current literature, and to provide recommendations for care based on a standardized grading system. DESIGN: Web-based survey. PARTICIPANTS: Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) members. METHODS: A 27-item web-based questionnaire was advertised to members of the OTA. Using a cross-sectional survey study design, we evaluated the preferences in diagnosis and treatment of ankle fractures. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-six of 1967 OTA members (8.4%) completed the survey (16% of active members). There is considerable variability in the preferred method of diagnosis and treatment of ankle fractures among the members surveyed. Most responses are in keeping with best evidence available. CONCLUSIONS: Current controversy remains in the management of ankle fractures. This is reflected in the treatment preferences of the OTA members who responded to this survey. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level V. See Instructions for authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.017 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".