MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067313166 · doi:10.1001/jama.286.3.341

Does This Patient Have Clubbing?

2001· review· en· W2067313166 on OpenAlex
K A Myers

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHypertrophic osteoarthropathy and related conditions
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu HospitalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKappaMEDLINECohen's kappaData extractionPhysical examinationMedical physicsRadiologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: The association between digital clubbing and a host of diseases has been recognized since the time of Hippocrates. Although the features of advanced clubbing are familiar to most clinicians, the presence of early clubbing is often a source of debate. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of the literature for information on the precision and accuracy of clinical examination for clubbing. DATA SOURCES: The MEDLINE database from January 1966 to April 1999 was searched for English-language articles related to clubbing. Bibliographies of all retrieved articles and of standard textbooks of physical diagnosis were also searched. STUDY SELECTION: Studies selected for data extraction were those in which quantitative or qualitative assessment for clubbing was described in a series of patients. Sixteen studies met these criteria and were included in the final analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by both authors, who independently reviewed and appraised the quality of each article. Data extracted included quantitative indices for distinguishing clubbed from normal digits, precision of clinical examination for clubbing, and accuracy of clubbing as a marker of selected diseases. DATA SYNTHESIS: The profile angle, hyponychial angle, and phalangeal depth ratio can be used as quantitative indices to assist in identifying clubbing. In individuals without clubbing, values for these indices do not exceed 176 degrees, 192 degrees, and 1.0, respectively. When clinicians make a global assessment of clubbing at the bedside, interobserver agreement is variable, with kappa values ranging between 0.39 and 0.90. Because of the lack of an objective diagnostic criterion standard, accuracy of physical examination for clubbing is difficult to determine. The accuracy of clubbing as a marker of specific underlying disease has been determined for lung cancer (likelihood ratio, 3.9 with phalangeal depth ratio in excess of 1.0) and for inflammatory bowel disease (likelihood ratio, 2.8 and 3.7 for active Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis, respectively, if clubbing is present). CONCLUSIONS: We recommend use of the profile angle and phalangeal depth ratio as quantitative indices in identifying clubbing. Clinical judgment must be exercised in determining the extent of further evaluation for underlying disease when these values exceed 180 degrees and 1.0, respectively.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.275 · 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