MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031989752 · doi:10.1142/s0218810410004837

SLAC WRIST IN THE ABSENCE OF RECOGNISED TRAUMA AND CPPD

2010· article· en· W2031989752 on OpenAlexaff
J. Whitcomb Pollock, A. Alan Giachino, Kawan Rakhra, Gina DiPrimio, H. Hrushowy, Anna F. Conway, M. Andreyechen

Bibliographic record

VenueHand Surgery · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWristSurgeryScapholunate ligamentLigamentRadiographyLunateAsymptomatic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This comparative cohort study was designed to determine whether non-traumatic SLAC wrist exists, and is associated with abnormal carpal bone kinematics (specifically, decreased lunate flexion). METHODS: SLAC patients with no recognised history of upper extremity trauma were prospectively compared with an age-matched control group. RESULTS: Thirty-five subjects (69 wrists), included 33 non-traumatic SLAC wrists and 36 control wrists. The non-traumatic SLAC group had significantly different radiographic kinematic analysis compared to the control group. Flexion of the asymptomatic non-degenerative wrist of the non-traumatic SLAC group was distributed 70% through the lunocapitate (LC) joint and only 30% through the RL joint (p < 0.05). Conversely, flexion was more evenly distributed in the control group (48% LC and 52% RL). The non-traumatic SLAC group had abnormal wrist kinematics even in the non-involved side. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that non-traumatic SLAC does exist. We believe that non-traumatic SLAC begins with abnormal wrist kinematics and that the dorsal radiolunate ligament restricts lunate flexion but not scaphoid flexion, leading to increased SL angles and, with years, eventual attrition of the SL ligament.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 venueHand SurgerySame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207