MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MOC-PS(SM) CME Article: Self-Assessment and Performance in Practice: The Carpal Tunnel

2008· review· en· W2014695651 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent R. Hentz, Donald H. Lalonde

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Nerve Disorders
Canadian institutionsHand and Upper Limb ClinicUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarpal tunnel syndromeMedicinePhysical examinationCertificationPhysical therapyCarpal tunnelCarpal tunnel releaseMedical historyPerioperativeSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning Objectives: After studying the article, the participant should be able to: 1. Conduct an appropriate history and physical examination for a patient suspected of having carpal tunnel syndrome. 2. Understand the role of provocative and other diagnostic tests pertinent to the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. 3. Understand the goals of the surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome and how to obtain these. 4. Appreciate the common complications of carpal tunnel surgery and their management. Summary: The purpose of this article is to review important aspects of the history, physical examination, diagnosis, and management of carpal tunnel syndrome. Associated diseases, predisposing factors, and prognostic features are explored. The significance of diagnostic studies and the variety of anesthetic techniques with which to perform the surgery are reviewed. Evidence regarding the different surgical approaches, such as the open versus the endoscopic, is examined. Postoperative care issues such as therapy and splinting are examined. Finally, complications of carpal tunnel surgery and their management are outlined. The Maintenance of Certification module series is designed to help the clinician structure his or her study in specific areas appropriate to his or her clinical practice. This article is prepared to accompany practice-based assessment of preoperative assessment, anesthesia, surgical treatment plan, perioperative management, and outcomes. In this format, the clinician is invited to compare his or her methods of patient assessment and treatment, outcomes, and complications with authoritative, information-based references. This information base is then used for self-assessment and benchmarking in parts II and IV of the Maintenance of Certification process of the American Board of Plastic Surgery. This article is not intended to be an exhaustive treatise on the subject. Rather, it is designed to serve as a reference point for further in-depth study by review of the reference articles presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1610.037

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicPeripheral Nerve DisordersFrench-language works237,207