The Canadian Prospective Pragmatic Perilunate Outcomes (C3PO) trial; a protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perilunate spectrum injuries (PSI) are uncommon, but high-energy injuries that result in significant functional implications for patients. The existing literature on PSI is limited to small case-series and there are no evidence-based guidelines for management. METHODS: This manuscript outlines a protocol for a three-armed, national, multi-centre study, which includes a patient injury registry for PSI, as well as associated retrospective and prospective arms. The primary objective is to establish a national injury registry for patients who present with PSI. The secondary objectives are to examine the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of PSI, evaluate progression of these outcomes over time, and to examine the impact of specific operative and injury related factors on outcomes. DISCUSSION: This paper describes the protocol for a three-armed, multi-centre study of PSI. It outlines the rationale for the study as well as the relevant methodological details. An injury registry involving multiple centres is valuable given this is an uncommon injury with many potential variables affecting outcomes. Registry-based retrospective and prospective studies will benefit from the large clinical database provided by the registry and could be used to guide evidence-based treatment guidelines which are currently lacking in the literature. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04370626.
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 | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 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".