MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989098444 · doi:10.1155/2014/627067

Extending the Indications for Primary Nerve Surgery in Obstetrical Brachial Plexus Palsy

2014· article· en· W1989098444 on OpenAlexaff
Stuart A. Bade, Jenny C. Lin, Christine Curtis, Howard M. Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueBioMed Research International · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNerve Injury and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversité de MontréalHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrachial plexusPalsySurgeryRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioMed Research InternationalSame topicNerve Injury and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207