Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Currently up to 58% of Canadian surgeons would forego screening radiographs after stable fracture fixation. It is therefore expected that reducing screening radiographs will be well accepted, provided that patient safety is not compromised, resulting in a cost reduction. The study objective was to measure the savings of a simplified radiographic protocol for well-fixed fractures and establish feasibility for a noninferiority trial that proves patient safety. Methods: Patients were randomized after fixation. The control group received screening radiographs immediately after fixation and at 2 weeks. The experimental group received radiographs only when clinically indicated. At 6 weeks all patients received radiographs. The cost of imaging, time spent in clinic and patient satisfaction was measured. A blinded reviewer documented adverse events, either detected or missed. Results: Of the 90 patients screened, 39 were randomized and 26 had complete follow-up. The mean cost of radiographs over the first 6 weeks was $44.51 (95% confidence interval [CI] 38.64–50.38) per patient in the experimental group, and $129.23 (95% CI 120.23–138.23) in the control group (p < 0.001). The mean time spent in clinic at 2 weeks was 46 min (95% CI 32–60) per patient for the experimental group and 68 min (95% CI 55–81) for the control group (p = 0.018). Two complications occurred in the experimental group. Both were detected clinically and did not qualify as missed events. Conclusion: Implementing a simplified radiography protocol after stable fracture fixation saves time and money. Additionally, no adverse events were missed with the study protocol. Recommendations are made toward a noninferiority trial to establish protocol safety.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".