MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415914761 · doi:10.1186/s40814-025-01708-3

Immediate versus delayed weight bearing for fractures of the pelvis, acetabulum, distal femur, and proximal and distal tibia: a feasibility randomized controlled trial

2025· article· en· W4415914761 on OpenAlexaff
Peter N. Mittwede, Vivian Li, David Okhuereigbe, Alice C. Bell, Casey Loudermilk, Haley K. Demyanovich, Joshua E. Lawrence, Kristin Turner, Murali Kovvur, Jordan Brand, Daniel J. Cunningham, Daniel J. Johnson, Aresh Sepehri, Marcus F. Sciadini, Jason W. Nascone, Mark J. Gage, Eric C. Hempen, Nathan N. O’Hara, Gerard P. Slobogean, Robert V. O’Toole

Bibliographic record

VenuePilot and Feasibility Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic and Acetabular Injuries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAO FoundationAO North America
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialWeight-bearingBearing (navigation)Body weightWeight loss

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Early weight bearing is frequently allowed and encouraged following fixation of hip and femoral and tibial shaft fractures, while pelvis, acetabulum, and lower extremity periarticular fractures are often prescribed 6-12 weeks of restricted weight bearing. Our objective was to perform a feasibility randomized trial of immediate versus delayed weight bearing as tolerated (WBAT) for fractures of the pelvis, acetabulum, distal femur, and proximal and distal tibia. METHODS: A parallel two-arm pilot feasibility trial was performed at one academic level I trauma center in the United States. Patients with a fracture of the pelvis, acetabulum, distal femur, proximal tibia, or distal tibia were eligible. Patients were randomized to either immediate WBAT or delayed (≥ 6 weeks) weight bearing after surgery. Our feasibility criteria included the following: (1) 25% overall enrollment (surgeon and patient agreement to participate in 50% eligible cases), (2) > 90% follow-up at 3 months), (3) 100% correct documentation of weight bearing status, and (4) 100% correct documentation of secondary outcome (reoperation). RESULTS: Surgeons allowed inclusion of 64/133 (48.1%) of eligible patients (by fracture type, 76% of pelvis; 43% of acetabulum; 38% of distal femur; 45% of proximal tibia (39% of tibial plateau); and 56% of distal tibia fractures). 50/64 (78%) of these patients agreed to participate in the study, for an overall enrollment of 38% (50/133). The follow-up rate was 46/50 (92%) at the 3-month follow-up. Correct documentation of postoperative weight bearing status and the secondary outcome of reoperation was achieved in all cases 50/50 (100%). There were two reoperations (one hardware failure and one wound infection) in the immediate WBAT group, and none in the delayed weight bearing group. CONCLUSION: All four of the feasibility criteria were met. While we did not meet our target of 50% of patients whom surgeons were willing to randomize, we did exceed the target of 25% overall patient enrollment. This feasibility trial demonstrates that a randomized controlled trial of early versus delayed weight bearing would be feasible for certain fracture types, and these findings will be used to help design future studies in this realm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05595148.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePilot and Feasibility StudiesSame topicPelvic and Acetabular InjuriesFrench-language works237,207