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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. 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). 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. 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 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 | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.081 | 0.017 |
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".