A thumb opposition splint to improve manual dexterity and upper-limb functioning in Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess initial efficacy and tolerability of a thumb opposition splint on manual dexterity, perceived upper limb functioning and occupational performance in patients with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease. DESIGN: One group pre-post design. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirteen patients were provided with a neoprene opposition splint for their dominant hand. Manual dexterity (Sollerman hand function test), perceived upper limb functioning (Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire) and occupational performance (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure) were assessed after using the splint and compared with pre-treatment scores (paired t-tests). Usability and tolerability were assessed with a questionnaire. RESULTS: Sollerman test scores improved significantly from a mean of 47 (standard deviation (SD) 11) to 52 (SD 12) points (norm 80 points) (p = 0.006). Perceived functioning in the domain activities of daily living (scale 0-100) improved significantly from 51 (SD 20) to 60 (SD 17) points (p = 0.04). Both occupational performance and satisfaction scores improved significantly (p = 0.020). Efficacy did not relate to age, disease duration or severity. Subjects were satisfied with splint cosmesis and comfort. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that a thumb opposition splint can be applied effectively to improve upper limb functioning in patients with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".