EVALUATION OF THE PROPRIOCEPTIVE INFLUENCE OF THE CUTANEOUS AFFERENTS TO THE ANKLE IN PATIENTS AFTER SURAL NERVE HARVESTING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cutaneous afferent nerves contribute to joint proprioception. The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze the proprioceptive influence of the cutaneous afferents to the ankle in patients after sural nerve harvesting in comparison to controls. METHODS: The proprioception of the ankle in 24 patients after sural nerve harvesting was investigated. The sural nerve was harvested bilaterally in Group 1 (n = 10), in the right leg in Group 2 (n = 6), and in the left leg in Group 3 (n = 8). The proprioception of the ankle was also tested in controls (Group 4, n = 24). The peroneal reaction time (PRT) was measured on a tilting platform. The position sense test was performed. Balance control was investigated with the Biodex Stability System (Biodex Medical Systems, Shirley, NY) at the stable Level 8 and unstable Level 2. RESULTS: No significant differences among the groups were seen in the position sense test, the PRT, and all scores of the Biodex Stability System. The PRT showed significant differences in comparison to the contralateral leg for the peroneus brevis muscle in Group 1 (P = 0.005) and Group 4 (P = 0.001) as well as for the peroneus longus muscle in Group 3 (P = 0.036) and Group 4 (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The proprioception of the ankle in patients after sural nerve harvesting is not reduced in comparison to controls. Significant differences of the PRT between the left and right legs are attributable to leg dominance in most cases and not to a loss of innervation. Harvesting of the sural nerve does not result in ankle instability.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".