MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076701120 · doi:10.1016/j.jare.2012.08.006

Kinesio arm taping as prophylaxis against the development of Erb’s Engram

2012· article· en· W2076701120 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Radwa S. ElKhatib, Emam H Elnegmy, Amina Hendawy Salem, Abdelaziz Sherief

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNerve Injury and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForearmMedicineDeltoid curveBicepsDeltoid muscleRehabilitationPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An Erb's Engram is a common debility that develops in recovering children with Erb's palsy. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of kinesiotaping over the deltoid and the forearm on the development of proper upper extremity function in children recovering from Erb's palsy. Thirty patients with Erb's palsy participated for 3 months in this study and were equally divided into two groups; control group A and study group B. The two groups received the same designed physical therapy program, while group B along the program, received kinesiotaping over the deltoid and the forearm. The subjects were evaluated, pre and post-treatment, and scored functionally, using the Toronto Active Motion Scale, and objectively, using an EMG device utilized to obtain the percentages of degeneration of the deltoid and the biceps muscles. Post-treatment values of six out of nine measured variables, between the two groups, revealed significant difference in favor of group B. The obtained results strongly support the introduction of kinesiotaping of the deltoid and the forearm as an adjunct to the treatment program of Erb's palsied children.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.357 · 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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced ResearchSame topicNerve Injury and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207