MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049433336 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100002377

Progress in Clinical Neurosciences: Perioperative Ulnar Neuropathies: A Medicolegal Review

2003· review· en· W2049433336 on OpenAlex
John Stewart, Stephen H. Shantz

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic Effects
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUlnar nervePerioperativeMedicineSurgeryLawsuitUlnar neuropathyAnesthesiaElbowLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Perioperative ulnar neuropathies have long been attributed to inappropriate arm positioning and padding during operations and have resulted in many lawsuits. METHODS: A recent Canadian lawsuit is described and the literature regarding perioperative ulnar and other focal neuropathies reviewed. RESULTS: The evidence strongly suggests that ulnar nerve damage is usually sustained in the postoperative rather than the intraoperative period. There is no evidence that positioning or padding of the arm during the operation prevents perioperative ulnar neuropathies. CONCLUSIONS: There should generally be no basis for a claim against medical or nursing staff or hospitals when an ulnar neuropathy develops following anesthesia and surgery.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.017
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0010.006
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.307 · 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