MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415671448 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088273

Distal Radius Interventions for Fracture Treatment (DRIFT) trial: study protocol for a multicentre randomised clinical trial of completely translated distal radius fractures at paediatric hospitals in North America

2025· article· en· W4415671448 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lauren C. Balmert, Joseph A. Janicki, Andrew G. Georgiadis, Walter H. Truong, Dorothy H. Beauvais, Mohan V. Belthur, Erika Daley, Jeanne M. Franzone, Andrew Howard, Collin May, Frank W. Rockhold, Jacob F. Schulz, Mary Bailey, Karen Chiswell, Jesse DeLaRosa, Jaysson T. Brooks, Anthony A Cantanzano, Andrea Chan, Alice Chu, Emily R. Dodwell, Ron El‐Hawary, Henry Ellis, Ryan Fitzgerald, Steven L. Frick, Theodore J. Ganley, Dominic Gargiulo, Luke Gauthier, Corey S. Gill, Rachel Y. Goldstein, Matthew F. Halsey, Christina K. Hardesty, Christine A. Ho, Neil Kaushal, J. Todd R. Lawrence, R. Jay Lee, Khristinn Kellie Leitch, Karim Masrouha, Stuart L. Mitchell, Natasha O’Malley, Monica Lizano, Daniel C. Perry, Wendy Ramalingam, Jason Rhodes, Julia S. Sanders, Apurva S. Shah, Melinda S. Sharkey, Mauricio Silva, Selina Silva, R.C. Thompson, John S. Vorhies, James G. Wright, Candace Young, Jamie Burgess

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie UniversityHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
KeywordsDistal radius fractureClinical trialPsychological interventionRADIUSProtocol (science)Fracture treatmentTreatment protocol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Distal radius fractures are the most common fractures seen in the emergency department in children in the USA. However, no established or standardised guidelines exist for the optimal management of completely displaced fractures in younger children. The proposed multicentre randomised trial will compare functional outcomes between children treated with fracture reduction under sedation versus children treated with simple immobilisation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Participants aged 4-10 years presenting to the emergency department with 100% dorsally translated metaphyseal fractures of the radius less than 5 cm from the distal radial physis will be recruited for the study. Those patients with open fractures, other ipsilateral arm fractures (excluding ulna), pathologic fractures, bone diseases, or neuromuscular or metabolic conditions will be excluded. Participants who agree to enrol in the trial will be randomly assigned via a minimal sufficient balance algorithm to either sedated reduction or in situ immobilisation. A sample size of 167 participants per arm will provide at least 90% power to detect a difference in the primary outcome of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity computer adaptive test scores of 4 points at 1 year from treatment. Primary analyses will employ a linear mixed model to estimate the treatment effect at 1 year. Secondary outcomes include additional measures of perceived pain, complications, radiographic angulation, satisfaction and additional procedures (revisions, refractures, reductions and reoperations). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the following local Institutional Review Boards: Advarra, serving as the single Institutional Review Board, approved the study (Pro00062090) in April 2022. The Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto, ON, Canada) did not rely on Advarra and received separate approval from their local Research Ethics Board (REB; REB number: 1000079992) on 19 July 2023. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at international conference meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05131685.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0750.015

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.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.388 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207