MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964727534 · doi:10.1136/ebm.7.5.153

Physiotherapy or a wait and see policy were the best options for lateral epicondylitis at 1 year

2002· article· en· W1964727534 on OpenAlexaff
Hans J. Kreder

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicUbiquitin and proteasome pathways
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpigenomicsEpigenomeComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGenomicsComputational biologyMachine learningGenomeBiologyDNA methylationGeneticsGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(2002) Lancet 359, 657; Smidt N, van der Windt DA, Assendelft WJ, et al. . Corticosteroid injections, physiotherapy, or a wait-and-see policy for lateral epicondylitis: a randomised controlled trial. . Feb 23; . : . –62 . [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: In patients with lateral epicondylitis, what is the effectiveness of a wait and see policy, physiotherapy, or corticosteroid injections? Randomised (allocation concealed*), blinded (outcome assessors),* controlled trial with 1 year of follow up. Practices of 85 family doctors in the Netherlands. 185 patients who were 18 to 70 years of age (median age 47 y) with pain at the lateral side of the elbow that increased with pressure on the lateral epicondyle and with resisted dorsiflexion of the wrist. Exclusion criteria included physiotherapy or corticosteroid injections for elbow pain in the previous 6 months; bilateral elbow symptoms; duration of pain for <6 weeks; dislocation, tendon ruptures, or fractures … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DLancet%26rft.stitle%253DLancet%26rft.aulast%253DSmidt%26rft.auinit1%253DN.%26rft.volume%253D359%26rft.issue%253D9307%26rft.spage%253D657%26rft.epage%253D662%26rft.atitle%253DCorticosteroid%2Binjections%252C%2Bphysiotherapy%252C%2Bor%2Ba%2Bwait-and-see%2Bpolicy%2Bfor%2Blateral%2Bepicondylitis%253A%2Ba%2Brandomised%2Bcontrolled%2Btrial.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS0140-6736%252802%252907811-X%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11879861%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07811-X&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11879861&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F7%2F5%2F153.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000174107400009&link_type=ISI

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary · Empirical

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicUbiquitin and proteasome pathwaysFrench-language works237,207