Mechanical Evaluation of 2.7- Versus 3.5-mm Plating Constructs for Midshaft Clavicle Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study compares the mechanical performance of 2.7- and 3.5-mm plating constructs for the treatment of midshaft clavicle fractures. METHODS: Twenty-four synthetic clavicles were randomly divided into four treatment groups-Synthes 2.7-mm cold-worked calcaneal reconstruction plate with 6 (CRP6) or 8 bicortical screws (CRP8); Synthes 3.5-mm LCP reconstruction plate (RP; and Synthes 3.5-mm LCP precontoured superior-anterior clavicle plate (PCRP). All clavicles were plated, a wedge-shaped inferior cortical defect was created, and testing was performed using a cantilever bending model to determine bending stiffness and yield point for each construct. RESULTS: Bending stiffness for the 3.5-mm PCRP construct was markedly higher when compared with the other three constructs, whereas the 3.5-mm RP construct was markedly stiffer than both of the 2.7-mm CR constructs. The yield point for the 3.5-mm PCRP construct was greater than the other three constructs; however, the yield point for the 2.7-mm CRP with six screws and with eight screws was higher than the 3.5-mm RP construct. The amount of displacement required to reach the yield point was highest for the 2.7-mm CRP with six screws. and this was markedly higher than the values for the other three constructs. DISCUSSION: The 3.5-mm plates demonstrated increased bending stiffness compared with the 2.7-mm plates. Despite the lower resistance to bending forces, the cold-worked 2.7-mm plate exhibited a markedly higher yield point and required markedly more superior to inferior displacement to initiate plastic deformation when compared with the 3.5-mm LCP RP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".