Extending the Indications for Primary Nerve Surgery in Obstetrical Brachial Plexus Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study identifies a small subset of patients with obstetrical brachial plexus palsy who, while they do not meet common surgical indications, may still benefit from primary nerve surgery. METHODS: Between April 2004 and April 2009, 17 patients were offered primary nerve surgery despite not meeting the standard surgical indications of the authors. The authors performed a retrospective analysis of these 17 patients using prospectively collected data. RESULTS: This group of 17 patients were identified as having poor shoulder function at about 9 months of age despite passing the Cookie Test. Fourteen patients underwent surgical intervention and three families declined surgery. All patients in the operative group regained some active external rotation after surgery. Five patients in this group have required further interventions. Two of the three patients for whom surgery was declined have had no subsequent spontaneous improvement in active external rotation. DISCUSSION: The commonly used indications for primary nerve surgery in obstetrical brachial plexus palsy may not adequately identify all patients who may benefit from surgical intervention. Patients who pass the Cookie Test but have poor spontaneous recovery of active shoulder movements, particularly external rotation, may still benefit from primary nerve surgery.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".