MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085040474 · doi:10.1177/1753193411421418

Functional contribution of T1 to the brachial plexus in infants

2011· article· en· W2085040474 on OpenAlexaff
Adel Fattah, Christine Curtis, Anne Agur, Howard M. Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hand Surgery (European Volume) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNerve Injury and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoMuscular Dystrophy Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrachial plexusUpper limbPalsyElbowDissection (medical)Elbow flexionBrachial plexus injuryAnatomyPhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To determine the contribution of the T1 root to movements of the upper limb in infancy, 40 infants presenting with obstetrical brachial plexus palsy who underwent resection and reconstruction of all brachial plexus roots with the exception of the T1 root were assessed in the early postoperative period. The movements of the limb were recorded using the Hospital for Sick Children active movement scale and demonstrated considerable variability. All movements of the upper limb were observed in this group with the exception of external rotation of the shoulder and elbow flexion. Classical accounts of the function of T1 have limited its activity to the small muscles of the hand and were based on anatomical dissection, brachial plexus injuries and electrical stimulation. By contrast, this study isolated the physiological activity of T1 and analysed the functional contribution of this root to arm movement. We show a greater than generally recognized contribution of T1 to the function of the upper limb in infants.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hand Surgery (European Volume)Same topicNerve Injury and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207