MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053154538 · doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e3181a80798

Obstetrical Brachial Plexus Palsy

2009· review· en· W2053154538 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gregory H. Borschel, Howard M. Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNerve Injury and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrachial plexusSural nerveSurgeryPalsyMotor functionNeuromaPerioperativeMotor nervePhysical examinationAnesthesiaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY: In this article, the authors review their approach to evaluation, operative management, and reconstructive technique. Brachial plexus injuries in the newborn are usually managed nonoperatively. The timing and indications for primary surgery vary significantly between institutions. The motor examination is used to determine which infants would benefit from operative management. Patients are selected based on established criteria, such as the Toronto Test Score, applied at age 3 months. However, some cases are initially less clear, and we may recommend delaying operative management until age 6 months or as late as age 9 months if the child fails the cookie test. Neuroma excision, sural nerve grafting, and nerve transfers are performed when indicated by clinical motor examination. The use of selective motor nerve transfers, either in combination with nerve grafting or alone, has allowed nerve coaptations to be performed closer to the neuromuscular junction, which may further improve regeneration. Children undergoing primary surgery experience low rates of perioperative morbidity, and they experience gains in motor function until 3 or 4 years postoperatively, at which point recovery stabilizes.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.006

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations108
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicNerve Injury and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207