Are We Overoperating on Isolated Orbital Floor Fractures?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Orbital floor fracture defect size and inferior rectus (IR) rounding index are currently accepted indications for surgery to prevent late enophthalmos. The authors analyzed the positive predictive value (PPV) of these indications. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with orbital floor fractures presenting without enophthalmos underwent Hertel exophthalmometry at presentation and at weeks 1, 2, 3, 6, 13, 26, and 52 or more after injury. Orbital defect size and IR rounding index were measured from computed tomographic scans, and PPVs of defects of 1.5 to 2 cm 2 or larger and IR rounding index of 1 or higher for enophthalmos (≥2 mm) were calculated. RESULTS: Nineteen patients had isolated orbital floor fractures (group A), three had noncontinuous orbital floor and medial wall fractures (group B), and six had continuous orbital floor with medial wall fractures (group C). Mean follow-up time was 440 days. Of all patients, 20 had a defect size of 1.5 cm 2 or larger, 12 had a defect of 2.0 cm 2 or larger, and 13 had an IR rounding index of 1 or higher. Of the 28 patients, only one from group A and two from group C developed enophthalmos of 2 mm only. The PPVs of orbital floor defect size of 1.5 cm 2 or larger and 2 cm 2 or larger (groups A and B only) for late enophthalmos were 6.7% and 0%, respectively. The PPV of IR rounding index of 1 or higher for late enophthalmos (all groups) was 0%. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with orbital floor fractures presenting without enophthalmos, defects of 1.5 cm 2 or larger and 2 cm 2 or larger, and IR rounding index of 1 or higher, are weakly predictive of late enophthalmos. Furthermore, patients who do not develop enophthalmos within 3 weeks of injury are unlikely to develop significant (>2 mm) late enophthalmos. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.
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 | 0.001 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".