Sacral U-type Fractures in Patients Older Than 65 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of disability that geriatric patients with sacral U-type fractures experience. METHODS: Patients older than 65 years presenting from 2013 to 2019 with a U-type sacral fracture were included. Patient demographics, treatment type, preinjury domicile, preinjury use of assistive devices, and neurologic deficits were recorded. Outcomes included mortality, return to preinjury domicile, and use of assistive devices for mobility. RESULTS: Among 46 patients in the treatment period, ground-level fall was the most common mechanism of injury (60.8%). Thirty-four patients (74%) were treated surgically, most commonly with closed percutaneous fixation (n = 27). Thirteen percent of patients died during the admission. At the final follow-up, 14 (45%) had not returned to their prior domicile and 18 (58%) required more supportive assistive devices. Seventy-three percent of patients who presented delayed required a new gait aid, compared with 47% presenting acutely. Between those presenting with low-energy versus high-energy mechanisms, similar rates of need were observed for new assistive devices (50% low and 73% high) and lack of return to preinjury domicile (40% low, 50% high). DISCUSSION: Many geriatric patients were disabled by or died after sustaining a sacral U-type fracture, highlighting the morbidity regardless of high-energy or low-energy trauma.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".