Complications of Closed Skeletal Reduction for Cervical Spinal Instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cervical traction devices such as Cone’s, Blackburn’s, Crutchfield’s, and Gardner-Wells tongs were utilized as external spine manipulation devices for many years prior to halo use. The first use of skull tongs for cervical spine manipulation is credited primarily to Howard H. Hepburn, who developed skull tongs specifically for cervical spine traction at the University of Alberta. Hepburn, the first neurosurgeon at the university, developed the hypothesis that traction would promote healing in cervical spine injuries based on his experience treating wounded soldiers during World War I. Hepburn designed his skull tongs based on common ice tongs and used automobile tire tubing as an elastic to keep the tongs applied to his patient’s head. These tongs were first utilized in the mid-1920s and began to receive acknowledgement by the 1930s. In 1933W.G. Crutchfield popularized his own cervical traction tongs. Crutchfield described his application of extension tongs to the calvaria of a 23-year-old woman with a traumatic C2-C3 fracture, and from that point on their use became widespread throughout the United States.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".