MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071203291 · doi:10.1002/mus.21619

Repeatability of ultrasonographic median nerve measures

2010· article· en· W2071203291 on OpenAlexaff
Bradley G. Impink, Dany H. Gagnon, Jennifer L. Collinger, Michael L. Boninger

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Nerve Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryMedian nerveUltrasoundRepeatabilityIntra-rater reliabilityReliability (semiconductor)Inter-rater reliabilityMedicineNuclear medicineMathematicsRadiologySurgeryStatisticsConfidence intervalRating scale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study we investigated the reliability of ultrasound in measuring median nerve characteristics including cross-sectional area (CSA), flattening ratio (FR), swelling ratio (SR), and mean grayscale. Generalizability theory was used to assess inter- and intrarater reliability using the dependability coefficient (phi), normalized standard error of measurement, and normalized minimum detectable change (MDC(NORM)) for multiple study design protocols. Interrater reliability was generally moderate. Intrarater reliability was mostly good (phi > 0.876) when using a single image, captured on one occasion, and being read once. Intrarater MDC(NORM) ranged from 3.8% to 6.2% for all CSA measures and SR. Using multiple images and/or readings at multiple occasions did not appreciably improve reliability measures. Ultrasound is a reliable tool for measuring median nerve characteristics. We recommend that a single evaluator capture all images for protocols aimed at quantifying median nerve ultrasound measures. We believe an appropriately designed protocol can utilize ultrasound to accurately assess changes in median nerve characteristics after activity.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations62
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicPeripheral Nerve DisordersFrench-language works237,207