Upper Extremity Size Differences in Brachial Plexus Birth Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to determine size differences between affected and unaffected upper extremities in patients with brachial plexus birth palsy (BPBP). Forty-eight patients with BPBP underwent measurements of the bilateral upper extremities. Average age at the time of evaluation was 47 months. In addition, patients or families were asked "How important is the difference in arm size and appearance to you?" Active motion was assessed using the modified Mallet classification, Toronto Test Score, and Hospital for Sick Children Active Movement Scale. Correlation between ratios of affected to unaffected limb lengths and girths and measures of active motion were assessed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Upper arm, forearm, and hand lengths of the affected limbs were, on average, 95%, 94%, and 97% of the contralateral unaffected side, respectively. Upper arm girth, forearm girth, and hand width were, on average, 97%, 98%, and 95% of the contralateral side, respectively. All differences achieved statistical significance (p < 0.01). Furthermore, over 37% of patients or families reported that limb differences were "very" or "extremely important" to them. No statistically significant correlation between age and limb length discrepancy was noted. Furthermore, there were no correlations between upper limb discrepancies and measures of active motion in individual patients. Patients with BPBP and persistent neurological deficits may expect the affected upper extremity to be on average approximately 95% the length and girth of the contralateral limb. These differences do not correlate with patient age or clinical measurements of active movement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".