MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098147402

Commentary & Perspective Should I Ever Fix a Clavicular Fracture? Commentary on an article by Robbin C. McKee, et al.: ‘‘Operative Versus Nonoperative Care of Displaced Midshaft Clavicular Fractures: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials’’

2016· article· en· W7098147402 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder and Clavicle Injuries
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDashNonunionClavicleRandomized controlled trialProspective cohort studyFixation (population genetics)Internal fixation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In their meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, McKee et al. offer a welcome and thorough analysis of the controversial topic of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. McKee was the lead investigator on a prospective randomized clinical trial by the Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society (COTS) study that was published in January 2007 in JBJS and that is included in this analysis1. Since the publication of that study, it has been my observation that some surgeons have used the results of that study—specifically, that, overall, patients have improved function at all time periods of analysis—to justify the overutilization of internal fixation of displaced clavicular fractures. This manuscript thoroughly evaluates the six prospective randomized trials that are available for analysis. The summation of the data indicates, as McKee et al. note, that approximately 75 % of all patients with a nonoperatively treated, 100 % displaced midshaft clavicular fracture will have essentially normal motion, with full fracture union, normal strength, and normal outcome scores of the upper extremity, and that there is an overall minimal difference in function between operative and nonoperative groups as measured with use of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and Constant scores. Approximately 15 % of patients with nonoperatively treated fractures will have a nonunion and 10 % will have a symptomatic malunion. It is not surprising that there is essentially no difference in the functional outcomes scores with use of the DASH or the Constant score for these two cohorts of patients. If 75 % of nonoperatively treated patients heal with few or no symptoms, this large percentage will blunt any effects of the two treatment groups when considered on the whole. This manuscript can be utilized to give

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0360.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.015

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.409 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicShoulder and Clavicle InjuriesFrench-language works237,207