Comparison of functional outcome of locking plate technique versus hybrid Ilizarov technique for complicated tibial plateau fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>This study compares the functional outcomes of two approaches, the locking plate technique and the hybrid Ilizarov technique, in managing complicated tibial plateau fractures. Enrolling 78 patients at Jinnah Hospital, the research explores a nuanced difference in results. In Group A (Hybrid Ilizarov Technique), 84.6% males and 15.4% females participated, while Group B (Locking Plate Technique) had 82.1% males and 17.9% females. The locking plate approach demonstrated superior outcomes, suggesting its efficacy in treating tibial plateau fractures.&nbsp;</p>
 <p>Study design: Cross sectional study.</p>
 <p>Study setting was department of Orthopedic Surgery, Jinnah Hospital Lahore</p>
 <p>Objective/purpose of the study was to evaluate the functional results of locking plate and hybrid Ilizarov procedure for tibial plateau fractures using Rasmussen's knee functional score.</p>
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".