MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Decompression of the Common Peroneal Nerve: Experience with 20 Consecutive Cases

2001· article· en· W2068497591 on OpenAlexaff
Achilleas Thoma, Susan Fawcett, Mark Ginty, Karen Veltri

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Nerve Disorders
Canadian institutionsOakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeurolysisDecompressionSurgeryCommon peroneal nervePeroneus longusAnkleElectromyographySural nerveLesionAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A retrospective review of 20 patients with common peroneal nerve palsy treated with decompression between 1986 and 1997 was undertaken. Subjects were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively by electromyography, nerve conduction, and clinical measures. The mean interval between the onset of symptoms to surgery (operative delay) was 15.9 months. The mean postoperative follow-up was 32.2 months with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Decompression was performed at the level of the fibular neck and slightly distally at the tendinous origin of the peroneus longus using a standard approach to release tight fascial structures or scar tissue. External neurolysis was performed using the operating microscope in two cases for which scarring of the nerve was identified intraoperatively. Postoperatively, 19 of 20 patients showed improvement in ankle dorsiflexion as assessed by the Medical Research Council scale. Electromyographic examination was useful in the preoperative evaluation and selection of patients for decompression surgery. In conclusion, decompression even after a 1-year delay may offer benefit and suggest early intervention in patients with a severe lesion.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
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
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations86
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicPeripheral Nerve DisordersFrench-language works237,207