MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995555483 · doi:10.14740/jcs387

Maxillofacial Fractures: A Three-Year Survey

2019· article· en· W2995555483 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Oluwafemi Adewale Adesina, John Chukwudumebi Wemambu, Taofiq Olamide Opaleye, Ajibola Yussuf Salami

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Current Surgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Trauma and Fracture Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)Oral and maxillofacial surgeryMaxillaRadiological weaponInjury preventionRetrospective cohort studyPoison controlRoad trafficDentistrySurgeryEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Maxillofacial fractures constitute a substantial proportion of trauma globally. The main causes worldwide are road traffic accidents (RTAs), falls, assaults, sports, firearm injuries and industrial trauma. The highest incidence is commonly seen in the young age group with majority being male. The most common site in maxillofacial injuries is the mandible followed by the zygomatic complex, maxilla, and alveolar process. Maxillofacial trauma also poses a significant socioeconomic burden on affected individuals. Hence appropriate treatment and prevention of these morbidities and possible mortality is necessary. This study is therefore aimed at analyzing the prevalence, pattern of presentation of maxillofacial injuries at Lagos State University Teaching Hospital (LASUTH) in Western Nigeria. Methods: A retrospective review of 182 patients diagnosed and treated for maxillofacial injuries at the Oral and Maxillofacial Department of the LASUTH was conducted. Data were obtained from clinical notes and records of radiological findings noting patient ’s age, gender, etiologic factors (RTA, assault, sport, and fall), anatomic site of injury and different definitive treatment modalities. The data were analyzed by SPSS version 20 using various descriptive statistical tools. Mean and standard deviation were calculated for quantitative variable like age while frequency and percentage were calculated for qualitative variables like gender and site of fracture. Results: Majority of patients were male (72.0%) with a male to female ratio of 1:0.4. Most patients were between 31 and 40 (34.1%) years of age. RTA accounting for 73.1% of the injuries was the most common cause for maxillofacial injury followed by assault (19.2%). Majority of injuries due to RTA were of motorcycles accidents (33.6%). The most common sites of fracture out of 226 sites were in the mandible (62.8%, P = 0.003). Among the mandibular fracture sites, 28.2% affected the body of the mandible. Majority (31.9%) of the studied patients presented within 24 h (<= 1 day). Out of the 182 patients, 68.1% were treated by close reduction. Conclusions: RTA represented the major etiological factor of maxillofacial injuries. The mandible remains the most affected bone of the facial skeleton. Closed reduction is the most common approach used for treatment. J Curr Surg. 2019;9(4):51-56 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcs387

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Current SurgerySame topicFacial Trauma and Fracture ManagementFrench-language works237,207