MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1426558978 · doi:10.1177/1753193415597422

Does prior local corticosteroid injection prejudice the outcome of subsequent carpal tunnel decompression?

2015· article· en· W1426558978 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy D.P. Bland, Nigel Ashworth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hand Surgery (European Volume) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Nerve Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCarpal tunnel syndromeCarpal tunnel releaseCarpal tunnelSurgerySurgical decompressionCorticosteroidPrejudice (legal term)Decompression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: It has been suggested that treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome by local corticosteroid injection may prejudice the outcome of subsequent surgery. We identified patients who had proceeded directly to carpal tunnel surgery and patients who had initially been treated with one or more injections and then subsequently underwent carpal tunnel surgery on the same hand. Outcomes of surgery were evaluated using pre- and post-operative Boston carpal tunnel syndrome scales and an ordinal scale for overall satisfaction. Multivariate models were created to study the effect of pre-operation injection on the surgical outcome while controlling for demographic and clinical variables. A total of 942 patients were included; 85% of the direct group and 84% of the prior-injection group reported themselves either completely cured or much improved after surgery. Post-operative symptom severity and functional status scores showed no significant difference between the direct-to-surgery and prior-injection groups. Prior local steroid injection does not prejudice the outcome of surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hand Surgery (European Volume)Same topicPeripheral Nerve DisordersFrench-language works237,207