MAXILLOFACIAL TRAUMA, ETIOLOGY AND PROFILE OF PATIENTS: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective: To describe the profile of patients with facial trauma admitted in a hospital located in a metropolitan area of Northeast Brazil. Methods: A cross-sectional and exploratory study was performed. A total of 244 cases were in agreement with the eligibility criteria. The variables include the sociodemographic characteristics of patients, etiology, type of trauma, treatment modalities, length of stay in a hospital and quarter of care. Descriptive statistics and Cluster Analysis were performed. Results: The average age of patients was 31.16 years (SD = 15.17 years) and average hospitalization was 6.32 days (SD = 7.75 days). It was verified the automatic formation of four clusters with different profiles of patients. The variables which most contributed to the external differentiation between clusters were: length of stay in a hospital (p <0.001), etiology (p <0.001), type of facial trauma (p <0.001), presence of associated trauma (p <0.001), treatment modalities (p <0.001) and quarter of care (p <0.001). Conclusion: The most of patients were men, victims of traffic accidents, which suffered fracture of zygomatic complex and underwent surgery. Level of Evidence III, Retrospective Study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".