Evaluation of Outcome of Halifax Nail and Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation-Asia in Management of Proximal Femoral Fractures – A Prospective Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of the study is to evaluate and compare the results of Halifax and proximal femoral nail antirotation-Asia (PFNA II) in proximal femur fractures. Methods: From December 2018 to August 2020, 30 proximal femur fracture nailing were performed. After applying the exclusion criteria, there were 24 patients to be evaluated. The patients were divided into two groups: Halifax group and PFNA II group. The scoring system used for clinical evaluation was Harris hip Score. Results: The follow-up period in both the groups was at least 6 months. The proportion of patients with improvements of Harris hip score at different time intervals of the patients treated with Halifax nail was marginally higher than that of the patients treated with Halifax and PFNA II nail but it was not significant ( P > 0.05). Conclusion: No statistically significant difference was found between Halifax nail and Halifax and PFNA II nail in surgeries done at this particular institution after comparative analysis of Harris hip scores and other parameters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".