Management of long bone fractures and traumatic hip dislocations in paediatric patients: study protocol for a prospective global multicentre observational cohort registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Management controversy and clinical equipoise exist in treatments of long bone fractures and traumatic hip dislocation in paediatric patients due to the lack of high-quality clinical evidence. This protocol describes the effort of a large prospective global multicentre cohort study (registry) aiming at providing quality data to assist evidence-based treatment decision-making. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Eligible paediatric patients (N=750-1000) with open physes suffering from proximal humerus fractures, distal humerus fractures, proximal radius fractures, forearm shaft fractures, traumatic hip dislocations, femoral neck fractures or tibial shaft fractures will be recruited over a period of 24-36 months. Hospitalisation and treatment details (including materials and implants) will be captured in a cloud-based, searchable database. Outcome measures include radiographic assessments, clinical outcomes (such as range of motion, limb length discrepancies and implant removal), patient-reported outcomes (Patient Reported Outcomes Of Fracture, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D-Y)) and adverse events.Aside from descriptive statistics on patient demographics, baseline characteristics, types of fractures and adverse event rates, research questions will be formulated based on data availability and quality. A statistical analysis plan will be prepared before the statistical analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval will be obtained before patients are enrolled at each participating site. Patient enrolment will follow an informed consent process approved by the responsible ethics committee. Peer-reviewed publication is planned to disseminate the study results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04207892.
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 | 0.040 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.009 |
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".