MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021947576 · doi:10.1159/000028942

Axillary Nerve Injuries in Children

2000· article· en· W2021947576 on OpenAlex
A. Tyagi, James M. Drake, Rajiv Midha, John R. W. Kestle

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

VenuePediatric Neurosurgery · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNerve Injury and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeurolysisAxillary nerveSurgeryConcomitantNerve injuryDeltoid curveDeltoid muscleAnesthesiaBrachial plexus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Isolated axillary nerve injury is uncommon, particularly in children. The motor deficit of shoulder abduction may not recover spontaneously and can be a substantial handicap. Detection may be difficult initially, as the injury is masked by trauma such as head injury, and concomitant shoulder injury requiring immobilization. After mobilization, patients learn to partially compensate by using alternate muscles. There are few reports of surgical management of this nerve injury. Most concern predominantly adults, and the results are mixed with on average slightly greater than half having a good recovery (defined as grade 4-5 Medical Research Council muscle power). We present our experience with 4 pediatric patients who had axillary nerve injury. Three patients had an interposition nerve graft, and 1 patient underwent neurolysis. All patients recovered to grade 4-5 deltoid muscle power. Children with an axillary nerve injury which fails to recover spontaneously by 4-6 months should strongly be considered for surgical exploration.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.235 · 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