Additional file 1 of Pin vs plate fixation for metacarpal fractures: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 1: Supplemental Table 1. Search strategy for identification of studies to be included in the review. Supplementary Table 2 A. Author’s judgements about study quality using the adapted Ottawa-Newcastle Risk of Bias Assessment for Observational Studies. Supplementary Table 2 B. Author’s judgements about risk of bias for the randomized controlled trial study based on Cochrane risk of bias assessment items. Supplementary Figure 1. Funnel plot for publication bias with respect to comparison of pooled DASH scores among the two groups (i.e. pinning for metacarpal fractures compared to ORIF with plate and screws). Supplementary Figure 2. Funnel plot for publication bias with respect to comparison of pooled range of movement (ROM) of the metacarpophalangeal joint (o) among the two groups (i.e. pinning for metacarpal fractures compared to ORIF with plate and screws). Supplementary Figure 3. Funnel plot for publication bias with respect to comparison of pooled grip strength (as % of the unaffected side) among the two groups (i.e. pinning for metacarpal fractures compared to ORIF with plate and screws). Supplementary Figure 4. Funnel plot for publication bias with respect to comparison of limb shortening (in mm) assessed by radiography among the two groups (i.e. pinning for metacarpal fractures compared to ORIF with plate and screws).
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 | 0.004 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.812 | 0.040 |
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".