MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971490905 · doi:10.1016/j.jhsb.2005.02.012

The Prevalence of Wrist Ganglia in an Asymptomatic Population: Magnetic Resonance Evaluation

2005· article· en· W1971490905 on OpenAlexaff
C.M. Lowden, Mohammed Attiah, Gregory J. Garvin, Joy C. MacDermid, Said Osman, Kenneth J. Faber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hand Surgery (European Volume) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWristAsymptomaticMagnetic resonance imagingLigamentAnatomyDorsumPopulationArticular capsule of the knee jointSoft tissueSurgeryRadiologyKnee Joint

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed on the wrists of 103 asymptomatic volunteers. The images were evaluated independently by two musculoskeletal radiologists and one orthopaedic surgeon. Wrist ganglia were identified in 53 out of the 103 wrists. The average long and short axes measurements were 8 mm (range 3-22) and 3 mm (range 2-10), respectively. Seventy per cent of the ganglia originated from the palmar capsule in the region of the interval between the radioscaphocapitate ligament and the long radiolunate ligament. Fourteen per cent of the ganglia were dorsal and originated from the dorsal, distal fibres of the scapholunate ligament. Two ganglia had surrounding soft tissue oedema and one had an associated intraosseous component. Unlike previous surgical and pathological series, our study showed that palmar wrist ganglia are more common than dorsal wrist ganglia. The vast majority of these asymptomatic ganglia occur without associated ligamentous disruption, soft tissue oedema or intraosseous communication.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations84
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hand Surgery (European Volume)Same topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207