Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In studies that included children diagnosed with toddler's fractures (TFs), we determined the fracture-related adverse outcomes in those treated with immobilization versus no immobilization. Furthermore, we compared health services utilization between these 2 immobilization strategies. METHODS: A search was done on Ovid MEDLINE(R), Embase Classic + Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials along with reference lists as conference proceedings and abstracts. No language or publication status or location restrictions were used. All study steps, including the methodological quality assessment, were conducted independently and in duplicate by 2 authors. RESULTS: Of the 490 references identified, 4 retrospective studies of low quality met inclusion criteria and collectively included 355 study participants. With respect to fracture-related adverse outcomes, there was no risk difference [0; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.09 to 0.09] between the immobilization and no immobilization treatment strategies. Furthermore, in the immobilization versus no immobilization groups, there was a higher mean difference in the number of radiographs (0.69; 95% CI, 0.15-1.23) and scheduled outpatient orthopedic visits (0.96; 95% CI, 0.24-1.68), but a decreased relative risk (0.41; 95% CI, 0.05-3.19) of repeat emergency department visits. No data were reported on patient pain or caregiver satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: In children with TF, this study suggests that no immobilization may be a safe alternative to immobilization for this minor fracture; however, high-quality evidence is needed to optimally inform clinical decision making. Future work should include validated measures of patient recovery, pain, and caregiver perspectives when comparing treatment strategies for this injury.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".