MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054016737 · doi:10.1002/jor.20599

Effect of wrist posture on carpal tunnel pressure while typing

2008· article· en· W2054016737 on OpenAlexaff
David Rempel, Peter J. Keir, Joel M. Bach

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Research® · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsCarpal tunnel syndromeWristCarpal tunnelUlnar deviationMedicineTypingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapySurgeryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long weekly hours of keyboard use may lead to or aggravate carpal tunnel syndrome. The effects of typing on fluid pressure in the carpal tunnel, a possible mediator of carpal tunnel syndrome, are unknown. Twenty healthy subjects participated in a laboratory study to investigate the effects of typing at different wrist postures on carpal tunnel pressure of the right hand. Changes in wrist flexion/extension angle (p = 0.01) and radial/ulnar deviation angle (p = 0.03) independently altered carpal tunnel pressure; wrist deviations in extension or radial deviation were associated with an increase in pressure. The activity of typing independently elevated carpal tunnel pressure (p = 0.001) relative to the static hand held in the same posture. This information can guide the design and use of keyboards and workstations in order to minimize carpal tunnel pressure while typing. The findings may also be useful to clinicians and ergonomists in the management of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome who use a keyboard.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations97
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic Research®Same topicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal DisordersFrench-language works237,207