Performance of prioritized activities is not correlated with functional factors after grip reconstruction in tetraplegia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the correlation between perceived performance in prioritized activities and physical conditions related to grip reconstruction. DESIGN: Retrospective clinical outcome study. PATIENTS: Forty-seven individuals with tetraplegia were included in the study. Each participant underwent tendon transfer surgery in the hand between November 2002 and April 2009 and had a complete 1-year follow-up. METHODS: Functional characteristics and performance data were collected from our database and medical records. Patients' perceived performances in prioritized activities were recorded using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measurement. Preoperative data included age at surgery, time since injury, severity of injury, sensibility and hand dominance. At 1-year follow-up, grip strength, key pinch strength, finger pulp-to-palm distance, distance between thumb and index finger and wrist flexion were measured. Correlation rank coefficient was used to test the possible relationship between physical data and activity performance. RESULTS: There were improvements in both functional factors and in rated performance of prioritized activities after surgery. There was no correlation between performance change and any of the physical functions, the factors known before surgery, or the functional outcome factors. CONCLUSION: No correlation exists between a single functional outcome parameter and the patients' perceived performance of their prioritized goals in reconstructive hand surgery in tetraplegia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".