Effective Hand Function Assessment After Burn Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared two methods of hand function assessment, the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) and the Test d'Evaluation des Membres Supérieurs des Personnes Agées (TEMPA) in 20 patients discharged from a regional adult burn center (1995-1999). Spearman's rank correlation coefficient analysis was used to compare the MHQ and TEMPA scores, with P <.05 considered significant. The MHQ revealed that 68% of patients reported hand function deterioration, mainly with the nondominant hand (65%). Activities of daily living (76%) and work (59%) were the most affected. According to the MHQ, patient satisfaction correlated with work performance (r =.66, P =.002), aesthetics (r =.64, P =.003), pain (r =.59, P =.008), and activities of daily living (r =.54, P =.017). The MHQ indicated more hand function deterioration than the TEMPA. There was a significant correlation between the MHQ and TEMPA total scores (r =.68, P =.001). This study supports using the MHQ to determine which patients would benefit from the more resource-consuming TEMPA.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".