MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

High incidence of absent nerve conduction in older patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome

2010· article· en· W2022601070 on OpenAlexaff
Bo Povlsen

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Nerve Disorders
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCarpal tunnel syndromeSplintsWristSurgeryCarpal tunnel releaseNerve conductionMedian nerveSensory nerveNerve conduction studyIncidence (geometry)Nerve conduction velocityMotor nerveSensory systemInternal medicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Carpal tunnel syndrome has been reported by some to have a less satisfactory outcome in older patients following surgery. However, this impression is not supported by other investigators but no objective explanation has been suggested for these differences. In our department, such patients are routinely treated with night wrist splints and, if this is unsatisfactory, they are investigated with nerve conduction studies prior to surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This paper reports the neurophysiological outcome in a young (< 40 years of age) and an older (> 60 years of age) group of patients with clinical bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome who did not benefit from splints. RESULTS: The results showed that both the motor and sensory conduction speeds are significantly lower in the older age group. More importantly in the older group, half had one or more hands where the sensory conduction was absent. In four out of these 10 patients this finding was bilateral and three patients had unilateral absent motor conduction. In the younger group, no patient had absent conduction. CONCLUSIONS: Poor surgical outcome in some older patients may be because of irreversibly damaged nerves prior to surgery and pre-operative neurophysiology is, therefore, recommended both for clinical and medicolegal reasons.

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 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of The Royal College of Surgeons of EnglandSame topicPeripheral Nerve DisordersFrench-language works237,207