Reply: Internal Fixation of Mandibular Angle Fractures: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sir: We wish to thank Drs. Telang and Jagannathan for their commentary letter. It seems that they have an experience and approach very similar to ours. Indeed, a gap in the inferior border may appear in the postoperative radiographs as a result of a single superior border plate. The size of the gap is affected by the location and direction of the fracture line relative to the muscles of mastication (favorable versus unfavorable). Provided that the fracture is stable enough to allow good bony healing with no occlusal changes, this gap does not have, in our opinion, any clinical significance. We agree that comminution at the fracture site is a different scenario and requires load-bearing plates. This is the reason that such fractures were excluded from our study. The removal of a third molar in the line of fracture may complicate the reduction, fixation, and healing of the fracture by creating a bone defect. This changes the alignment of the fracture and reduces the bone stock for stabilization of the fracture. In contrast, when the removal of the third molar is not indicated, it can contribute to the stability and alignment of the fracture, although a longer plate may be necessary to avoid the tooth. Eran Regev, D.M.D., M.D. Jeffery A. Fialkov, M.D., M.S.C. Plastic Surgery Sunnnybrook Health Sciences Center Toronto, Ontario, Canada
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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 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".