MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076973095 · doi:10.1097/jsm.0000000000000065

Is Intramuscular Pressure a Valid Diagnostic Criterion for Chronic Exertional Compartment Syndrome?

2013· letter· en· W2076973095 on OpenAlex

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

VenueClinical Journal of Sport Medicine · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMuscle and Compartmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCompartment (ship)Physical therapyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare the intramuscular pressure (IMP) of the tibialis anterior in healthy persons under several exercise conditions with the IMP diagnostic criteria in use for diagnosing chronic exertional compartment syndrome (CECS). DATA SOURCES: A search of MEDLINE for the period 1966 to March 2010 used the words "intramuscular," "intracompartment," "anterior compartment," and "anterior tibial compartment" linked with "pressure." Reference lists of relevant studies were searched for further articles. STUDY SELECTION: Articles published in English that tested IMP in the tibialis anterior in asymptomatic humans were included if they used no interventions before or during IMP testing. Studies were excluded if data were given as a percentage of IMP or if the data could not be extracted for the tibialis anterior compartment alone. From 515 articles identified, 38 studies met selection criteria DATA EXTRACTION: : Details of the studies included IMP measurement technique, timing of measurement (before, during, and/or after exercise), type and duration of exercise, the number of compartments measured, and participants' ages. Mean or median pressure was recorded in mm Hg. DIAGNOSTIC STANDARD: Criteria for the upper limit of normal pressure under different conditions were the Pedowitz criterion for preexercise IMP (15 mm Hg), the Puranen criterion for IMP during exercise (50 mm Hg), the Styf criterion for relaxation pressure (30-55 mm Hg), and the Pedowitz criteria for mean 1-minute postexercise and 5-minutes postexercise pressures (30 mm Hg and 50 mm Hg, respectively). MAIN RESULTS: Exercise was mostly treadmill walking/running (duration, 1.5-120 min) or ankle dorsiflexion (duration, 10 sec-20 min). Methods of measuring IMP varied from study to study. The lowest mean IMP was identified preexercise at rest (range, 0-20 mm Hg). Five of the 34 studies found a higher mean resting pressure than the criterion (15 mm Hg). Mean pressure during exercise (10 studies, 9 of running, with durations of 5-20 min) varied between 23 mm Hg and 66 mm Hg. Two of these studies found a higher mean peak pressure during exercise than the criterion (50 mm Hg). Mean relaxation IMP, measured in 9 studies, was approximately 25 mm Hg in the 1 treadmill study in which it was measured, whereas studies of dorsiflexion found a range of approximately 5 to 15 mm Hg. All the studies found lower mean relaxation IMP than the criterion (35-50 mm Hg). One of 11 studies and 1 of 10 studies found the mean postexercise IMP after 1 minute and 5 minutes to be above the criteria of 30 mm Hg and 20 mm Hg, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The limits of anterior tibialis IMP before, during, and after exercise that are used as diagnostic criteria for CECS would include many asymptomatic persons. Intramuscular pressure values were not valid criteria for the presence of the syndrome.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.314 · 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