MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971254596 · doi:10.1007/s11552-012-9402-8

Management of Digital Tendon Avulsion at the Musculotendinous Junction of the Forearm: A Systematic Review

2012· review· en· W1971254596 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHand · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
FundersMcKnight Foundation
KeywordsMedicineAvulsionAvulsion injuryNumerical digitTendonSurgeryAmputationForearmThumbReplantationTendon transfer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Tendon avulsion at the musculotendinous junction caused by digit avulsion amputation or closed injury is a challenging problem, for which the literature lacks definitive recommendations regarding treatment. We have provided a systematic review and developed an algorithm to delineate optimal management of this injury. METHODS: Two independent reviewers undertook a systematic review of the literature to identify articles discussing management of forearm tendons avulsed at their musculotendinous junction. Patient demographics, injury mechanism, injury pattern, type of repair, and outcome were investigated. These data were analyzed to reveal tendencies in management, which were then organized into an algorithm. RESULTS: Twenty articles fit our criteria for a total of 91 tendons. Cases were mostly males involved in work accidents. Treatment options were tendon resection, reattachment to muscle, tendon transfer, and side-to-side repair. When the digit was replanted, tendons avulsed through avulsion amputations were preferentially treated by reattachment in the case of the thumb, transfers for the index and long fingers, and resection for the ring and small fingers. Reattachment was favored for metacarpophalangeal level amputations, while transfer was selected for proximal phalanx levels. For closed avulsion injuries, flexors were preferentially treated with reattachment or transfer, while extensors underwent transfer or side-to-side repair. CONCLUSIONS: In the management of tendon avulsions at the musculotendinous junction, specific procedures are favored depending on the mechanism of injury, the type of tendon and digit involved, and the level of bone amputation. An algorithm is presented to facilitate optimal treatment based on these injury characteristics.

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 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)0.001
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.269 · 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