Initial Results of Halifax Nail in Elderly Intertrochanteric Fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Variety of implants (extramedullary and intramedullary) are available to fix intertrochanteric (IT) fracture but hardly any data is available that proves the superiority of one over other. Every implant is having its own advantage and disadvantages. The aim of this study is to analyze the results of Halifax nail in age group of 60 to 100 year age group. Materials and Methods: Total 15 cases of intertrochanteric fracture operated using Halifax nail in which youngest patient was 60 years male and oldest was 95 years female.13 cases operated in same hospital and 2 in two different hospitals. These patient were chosen randomly among elderly IT fracture admitted in hospital during August 2017 to January 2019. Results are analyze in term of Mobilization, pain control, union time, implant failure. Final outcome was evaluated as per Harris Hip Score. Result: Among 15 cases,13 follow up available, 2 patient were lost in follow up after natural death. Out of 13 patients ( n = 13), 7 showed excellent, 5 showed good and one patient showed poor result as per Harris Hip Score. Conclusion: Results of Halifax nail for IT fractures in elderly was found to be highly encouraging. All patients had early union and none had implant failure. Early mobilization and negligible mortality and morbidity were other added advantages.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".