MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3153794287 · doi:10.1089/fpsam.2020.0643

Epidemiology of Nasal Bone Fractures

2021· article· en· W3153794287 on OpenAlexaff
Selina X. Dong, Nishi Shah, Amar Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueFacial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNasal Surgery and Airway Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentEpidemiologyFacial boneRetrospective cohort studyDiagnosis codeNasal boneEmergency medicineSurgeryPediatricsPopulationInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Although nasal bones are the most common type of facial fracture given their natural projection and vulnerability to trauma, there is a paucity of data on its trends. Objective: To report on the trends and costs associated with open and closed nasal bone fractures across the United States. Methods: A retrospective analysis from 2006 to 2014 was conducted of the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample by using the International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision codes for closed and open nasal bone fractures (802.0 and 802.1) presenting to emergency departments (ED). Trend analysis of total number and rate of visits, discharges, admissions, and associated costs were conducted. Results: Data from 1,253,399.741 records were collected. The total number of ED visits decreased by 2.05% for both open and closed nasal fractures from 2006 to 2014 whereas their associated costs increased ( p < 0.001 and p < 0.05 for closed and open nasal fractures). Notably, open fractures were consistently costlier whereas closed fractures had a greater percent-increase in costs (76.65%). Conclusions and Relevance: This study identified a significant rise in nasal fracture costs, which can be reduced via use of cheaper diagnostic modalities and cost-effective endoscopic procedures.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.323
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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFacial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic MedicineSame topicNasal Surgery and Airway StudiesFrench-language works237,207