MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W162204958

Paget Schroetter Syndrome: A case study of the chiropractor's role in recognizing and comanaging an important condition.

2012· article· en· W162204958 on OpenAlexaff
Tracy L Rowan, Mohsen Kazemi

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Nerve Disorders
Canadian institutionsCanadian Memorial Chiropractic College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralChiropracticThoracic outlet syndromeMultidisciplinary approachEtiologyManual therapyPhysical therapyHealth professionalsThoracic outletHealth careAlternative medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationFamily medicineSurgeryPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To emphasize the importance for health care professionals to be knowledgeable of a relatively rare form of thoracic outlet syndrome, known as Paget Schroetter syndrome. The etiology, key signs and symptoms, and the importance of immediate referral are highlighted and an introduction to manual therapists' role within a multidisciplinary team is provided. CLINICAL FEATURES: Healthy athletes aged 15-30 are most commonly affected with 60-80% of patients reporting a history of repetitive or vigorous overhead activity prior to symptom onset. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME: Manual therapists have a role in recognizing, referring, and providing symptomatic relief with soft tissue therapy, correcting abnormal biomechanics, manipulations, mobilizations, and a rehabilitative program, as seen in this case report. CONCLUSION: Early recognition and referral of Paget Schroetter syndrome are essential for optimal recovery. Manual therapists may prove to have a role in decreasing the need for surgical decompression and accelerating resumption of regular activities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0070.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPeripheral Nerve DisordersFrench-language works237,207