Characteristics of antebrachial fractures associated with a successful outcome among free-ranging birds of prey that received treatment in a rehabilitation program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify characteristics of antebrachial fractures associated with a successful outcome (ie, bird released back into the wild after regaining normal flight ability, without being returned to the rehabilitation program within 1 month afterward) for free-ranging birds of prey admitted to a rehabilitation program. ANIMALS: 620 birds of prey (representing 24 species) with antebrachial fractures admitted alive to a rehabilitation program from August 1986 through December 2015. PROCEDURES: The medical record of each bird was reviewed to obtain information on species, age, sex, year of admission, fracture characteristics, and treatments administered. Outcome was classified as successful or unsuccessful on the basis of available data. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify fracture characteristics associated with outcome. RESULTS: 519 of 620 (84%) birds received treatment, and a successful outcome was recorded for 245 (47%) treated birds. Birds with closed (vs open) fractures were significantly more likely to have a successful outcome. Birds with concomitant radial and ulnar fractures involving the same third of the antebrachium (vs other types of antebrachial fractures) were significantly less likely to have a successful outcome, although birds with this type of fracture were significantly more likely to have a successful outcome when the fracture was localized to the middle or distal (vs proximal) third of the antebrachium. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The characteristics of antebrachial fractures associated with a successful or unsuccessful outcome in this study may be useful in the development of triage protocols for birds of prey in other rehabilitation centers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".