Trapezial Fractures and Associated Fractures of the Ulnar Carpus: A Ring-Bone Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fractures of the trapezium are rare; however, the incidence may be under-reported in the literature. The incidence of ulnar-sided carpal body fractures as a concomitant injury has not been reported. Our study aimed to evaluate the incidence of trapezium fractures in conjunction with ulnar-sided carpal body fractures. METHODS: Over a five-year period, our electronic records were queried and charts reporting carpal bone fractures were reviewed. All cases of trapezium fracture were evaluated further and presented. RESULTS: Eight trapezial fractures were identified, representing 8% of all carpal fractures and 26% of all nonscaphoid carpal fractures. Of the eight trapezium fractures identified, five (62.5%) were associated with Bennett fracture and four (50%) were associated with ulnar-sided carpal fractures. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates a higher incidence of trapezial fractures than previously reported. Previously unreported concomitant ulnar-sided carpal body fractures are reported at a frequency nearly equal to that of concomitant Bennett fractures in our series. We propose a mechanism of injury where the carpal canal and overlying transverse carpal ligament function as a ring-bone construct similar to the pelvis. When a trapezium fracture is identified, we recommend additional evaluation for ulnar-sided injuries of the carpus.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".