Variations in diagnostic criteria for carpal tunnel syndrome among Ontario specialists
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Variations in diagnostic criteria for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) may result in differing reports of disease prevalence, errors in diagnosis, and variable results of treatment. The objective of this study was to determine how consistent specialists are in their ratings of the importance of clinical criteria for the diagnosis of CTS. METHODS: Three hundred specialist physicians and surgeons received a questionnaire containing 57 clinical criteria for the diagnosis of CTS. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to rate the importance of each criterion in the diagnosis of CTS. RESULTS: The overall consistency both across and within specialties was poor (intraclass correlation coefficient across specialties (ICC) = 0.28; ICC range within specialties 0.27-0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Specialists are relatively inconsistent in the importance they assign to clinical criteria for the diagnosis of CTS. This inconsistency may be an important source of variation in the reported prevalence and treatment of CTS.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it