Long-term outcomes of major upper extremity replantations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-term outcomes of major upper extremity replantations are infrequently reported. It is believed that replantation is indicated for amputations at all levels in children and for all distal amputations in adults. Replantations of arm or proximal forearm amputations in adults are controversial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the results of major upper extremity replantations, defined as those that are transmetacarpal, through the wrist, forearm, elbow or arm. METHODS: A review of these types of replantations performed at the authors' institution from 2002 to 2012 was conducted. Patients' strength, range of motion and two-point discrimination were assessed. Patients completed the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS). RESULTS: Seventeen patients underwent major upper extremity replantation surgery. The majority (16 of 17 [94%]) of the included patients were male. Of 17 patients, 13 (76.5%) required reoperations. The mean (± SD) DASH score of seven patients who consented to completing all questionnaires was 75.4±14.2 of 100 (range 59.2 to 91.1). On the MHQ, the mean score for affected hand function was 16% compared with 84% in the unaffected hand. Patients generally demonstrated at least mild levels of anxiety and depression on the HADS. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that major upper extremity injuries and replantations have a significant impact on patients' long-term hand function, and produce long-term anxiety and depressive symptoms.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it