Radial nerve palsy in the newborn: a case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peripheral nerve palsies of the upper extremities presenting at birth can be distressing for families and care providers. It is therefore important to be able to identify patients whose diagnosis is compatible with full recovery so that their families can be reassured. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of all infants presenting with weakness of the upper extremity to our clinic between July 1995 and September 2009. We also conducted a review of the current literature. RESULTS: During the study period, 953 infants presented to our clinic. Of these patients, 25 were identified as having isolated radial nerve palsy (i.e., a radial nerve palsy in isolation with good shoulder function and intact flexion of the elbow). Seventeen infants (68.0%) had a subcutaneous nodule representing fat necrosis in the inferior posterolateral portion of the affected arm. Full recovery occurred in all patients within a range of one week to six months, and 72.0% of the patients (18/25) had fully recovered by the time they were two months old. INTERPRETATION: Although the outcome of obstetrical brachial plexus palsy is highly variable, isolated radial nerve palsy in the newborn carries a uniformly favourable prognosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".