Assessment of Hip Abductor Power in Patients With Foot Drop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".