MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998270856 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e318268c8bc

Assessment of Hip Abductor Power in Patients With Foot Drop

2012· article· en· W1998270856 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Nerve Disorders
Canadian institutionsObject Research Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFoot dropDifferential diagnosisLumbarWeaknessLumbosacral jointElectromyographySurgeryPhysical examinationMedical diagnosisPeripheral neuropathyPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study on a diagnostic test. OBJECTIVE: To determine the usefulness of hip abductor power assessment in the differential diagnosis of foot drop due to lumbar radiculopathy and peroneal neuropathy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Foot drop arises from various neuromuscular conditions. Differential diagnosis obvious in the typical case, however, is often inconclusive. There are few reports regarding the validity of hip abductor power in the differential diagnosis of foot drop. METHODS: Sixty-one consecutive patients who presented with tibialis anterior weakness Medical Research Council grade of less than 3 were included and underwent neurological examination including the assessment of hip abductor power. Patient demographics, mechanism and pattern of foot drop, neurological findings, and the diagnoses were recorded. Final diagnoses were established on the basis of clinical information, imaging studies, and electrophysiological study in limited cases. Validity and reliability of the hip abductor power assessment in the differential diagnosis of foot drop due to lumbar radiculopathy and peroneal neuropathy were evaluated. RESULTS: There were 44 men and 17 women, with a mean age of 46.8 years (19-77 yr). The final diagnosis was peroneal neuropathy in 28 patients, lumbosacral plexopathy in 9 patients, lumbar radiculopathy in 21 patients, and sciatic nerve disorder in 3 patients. Concomitant hip abductor weakness was found in 85.7% of lumbar radiculopathy and 3.6% of peroneal neuropathy. The sensitivity and specificity of hip abductor power in the differential diagnosis of foot drop due to the lumbar radiculopathy and peroneal neuropathy were 85.7% and 96.4%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 94.7% and 90%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Assessment of hip abductor strength is a simple and useful method in the differential diagnosis of foot drop due to lumbar radiculopathy and peroneal neuropathy.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.275 · 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