MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416210722 · doi:10.1302/1358-992x.2025.13.088

DEVELOPMENT OF A SURGICAL DIFFICULTY SCORE FOR OPEN REDUCTION INTERNAL FIXATION OF PILON FRACTURES

2025· article· en· W4416210722 on OpenAlexaff
A. Abbas, Daniel J.P. Burns, Surendra Dasari, Pranav Kumar Prabhakar, J. Herbert-Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrthopedic surgeryInternal fixationCohortReduction (mathematics)Pilon fractureRetrospective cohort studyAnkleFixation (population genetics)Intramedullary rod

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Definitive surgical management of pilon fractures varies from relatively straightforward to extremely challenging. Objective assessment and prediction of surgical difficulty would be useful to guide orthopedic surgeons with management or referral, help accurately schedule and bill for the required operative time, and track surgeon and institutional performance. Integrating machine learning (ML) into these predictions will allow for robust models and broaden their applicability. The purpose of this research is to 1) identify specific injury characteristics that contribute to surgical complexity in pilon fracture management, and 2) develop a ML Pilon Surgical Difficulty Score (PSDS) based on these factors. A retrospective cohort study of 100 pilon fractures managed definitively with operative fixation was conducted at an academic Level 1 Trauma Center. The following patient and injury characteristics were assessed: age, body mass index (BMI), osteoporosis, open fracture type, AO/OTA code, articular comminution, presence and location of articular impaction, articular displacement, metaphyseal comminution, diaphyseal extension, fibula fracture, syndesmosis injury, and delayed delay to surgery (days). Surgical difficulty for each case was measured using two outcomes: 1) perceived difficulty and 2) operative time. Perceived difficulty was determined by taking the average of 12 fellowship trained traumatologist grading on the perceived case difficulty from an ordinal scale from one to ten. Univariate analysis was performed to identify significant predictors of difficulty for each outcome. ML models including linear regression, random forest, and neural network were used to develop various PSDSs using recursive feature elimination and evaluated for predictive accuracy by five-fold cross-validation. The cohort included 8 43A, 31 43B, and 61 43C type fractures. The mean perceived difficulty was 5.06 (range: 1.50-9.25) and mean operative time was 4.98 (range: 1.45-11.07 hours). Significant predictors of perceived difficulty included AO/OTA classification (p=0.01) and delay to surgery (p There is a large range in the surgical difficulty and operative time required to perform definitive fixation for pilon fractures. A large proportion of the variance is predictable based on the severity of the fracture pattern and delay to definitive fixation. This project used machine learning to generate accurate PSDSs for both difficulty and operative time. Future work should aim to clinically validate these PSDSs so they may be used to accurately schedule patients, improve institutional performance and improve patient outcomes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.302 · 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
GenreMethods

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 venueOrthopaedic ProceedingsSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207