MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969212064 · doi:10.1212/wnl.55.1.24

Developmental apraxia arising from neonatal brachial plexus palsy

2000· article· en· W1969212064 on OpenAlexaff
T. Brown, Cynthia Cupido, H. Scarfone, Karen E. Pape, Victoria Galea, Alan J. McComas

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNerve Injury and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotor unitBrachial plexusPalsyMedicineApraxiaNeurologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyAudiologyAnesthesiaNeuroscienceAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether motor unit activation is impaired in patients with persisting disability arising from neonatal brachial plexus palsy (NBPP). BACKGROUND: In NBPP patients, the authors previously found more extensive muscle reinnervation than might have been anticipated from the clinical examination. METHODS: Motor skills were tested in a group of nine boys and seven girls with prior NBPP, who then underwent physiologic investigation of proximal and distal muscles in their affected and unaffected arms. The latter tests comprised measurements of maximal evoked muscle compound action potential (M-wave) amplitude, maximal voluntary torque, twitch torque, and twitch interpolation. A group of 17 children of similar ages served as control subjects. RESULTS: In the NBPP group, motor skills were diminished and voluntary torque was reduced relative to M-wave amplitude and twitch torque. Moreover, interpolated twitches could be demonstrated in some NBPP patients but not in control subjects. CONCLUSION: Persisting disability in NBPP patients is due, at least in part, to impaired motor unit activation. The authors suggest that the impairment is a form of developmental apraxia caused by defective motor programming in early infancy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations122
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicNerve Injury and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207