Distal Radius Fracture Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distal radius fracture (DRF) is arguably the most common upper extremity fracture resulting from a fall accident. These clinical practice guidelines (CPG) were developed to guide all aspects of the management of DRF by physical therapists and other rehabilitation practitioners, such as certified hand therapists. This CPG employed a systematic review methodology to locate, appraise, and synthesize contemporary evidence while developing practice recommendations for determining the prognosis of outcomes, examination, and interventions while managing individuals with DRF. The quality of the primary studies found in the literature search was appraised using standardized tools. The strength of the available evidence for a particular practice domain (e.g., prognosis or intervention) was graded as strong, moderate, weak, or conflicting, where such gradings guided the level of obligation for each practice recommendation. Lastly, the CPG also provided the gaps in the evidence pool for the rehabilitation of DRF that future research efforts can address. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(9):CPG1-CPG78. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.0301
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".