MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047614403 · doi:10.3928/01477447-20100129-33

Pediatric Trigger Thumb in Identical Twins: Congenital or Acquired?

2010· article· en· W2047614403 on OpenAlexaff
Rafid Kakel, Pieter Van Heerden, Barry Gallagher, Andrew Verniquet

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopedics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsPaton (Canada)Memorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThumbMedicineEtiologyTendonPathologicalTrigger fingerSurgeryAnatomyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pediatric trigger thumb is an uncommon condition with a calculated incidence of 3 per 1000 live births or less. Some reports have suggested a congenital etiology while others could not find a single case of pediatric trigger thumb at birth. This article reports the occurrence of bilateral trigger thumbs in identical twins, age 3 years and 9 months, affecting their thumbs to similar extents, which may suggest a congenital etiology.Congenital etiology for trigger thumb has been proposed for many reasons: occurrence in infants, occurrence in twins, occasional bilaterality, possible presence of triggering at birth, and absence of history of trauma. The occurrence of pediatric trigger thumb in twins has been reported 3 times in the literature; all reported cases were bilateral, as in our case.The mean age at presentation of pediatric trigger thumb is 2 years. The thumb is usually held in a fixed flexion position (mimicking a fracture). Examination usually reveals a palpable nodule in the flexor pollicis longus tendon at the metacarpal joint. This is an important clinical sign. Triggering in children, however, is rare. Macroscopically, there is a nodular thickening of the tendon itself. Pathological changes can be found in the tendon, tendon sheath, or both. A specimen taken from one of the nodules in our case showed degenerative changes while those from both pulleys were normal.Pediatric trigger thumb responds predictably to A1 pulley release, preferably before age 4 years, although milder cases may resolve spontaneously.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopedicsSame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207