Selection of Operative Procedures for Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the primary operative procedures that are performed by hand surgeons for cubital tunnel syndrome and their reported satisfaction with these procedures. The survey consisted of 22 questions regarding primary operative treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome and demographics and was sent by email to the 459 active members of the American Association for Hand Surgery. One hundred sixty-four surgeons completed the survey (36% response rate). The total sample included 154 hand surgeons (143 males, 11 females) who operated on cubital tunnel syndrome and the majority of surgeons were in private practice (n = 100) followed by academic practice (n = 50). The most prevalent factors that influence the decision to operate include evidence of muscle atrophy (84%), abnormal nerve conduction studies (51%), and failed non-operative treatment (49%). Most surgeons (n = 133) reported using more than one operative procedure for their patients with cubital tunnel syndrome. Factors that influenced the operative procedure selected included the degree of nerve compression (60%), medical comorbidities (30%), patient's occupation (28%), and obesity (22%). Following carpal tunnel surgery, 88% of the surgeons were "very satisfied" with their patient outcome and following surgery for cubital tunnel syndrome, only 44% were "very satisfied" with their patient outcome. Most surgeons use more than one operative procedure in their treatment of patients with cubital tunnel syndrome and the selection of the operative procedure is influenced by patient factors and surgeon preference.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".