MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108236639 · doi:10.1007/s11552-010-9288-2

Is it True that Injecting Palmar Finger Skin Hurts more than Dorsal Skin? New Level 1 Evidence

2010· article· en· W2108236639 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

VenueHand · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSaint John Regional HospitalDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDorsumMiddle fingerLittle fingerSurgeryAnatomyIndex fingerThumb

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Since the first texts on local anesthesia were written in the early 1900s, it has been widely quoted and believed that dorsal finger skin is less sensitive to needlestick pain than volar finger skin. The result is that the most commonly used finger block for local anesthesia is the dorsal two injection technique. METHODS: In this study, the needlestick discomfort associated with dorsal and volar finger skin was compared in a group of 78 volunteers who had the long finger of both hands poked with a 25 G needle; one in the midline of the volar side and the other in the lateral web space of the dorsal side. Volunteers then completed a pain scale for each needlestick and ranked which technique they would prefer for future injections. RESULTS: We found that there was no significant difference in needlestick pain or preference of future needle location between the dorsal and volar aspects of the finger. CONCLUSIONS: We provide level 1 evidence that the needlestick of the SIMPLE block which has one needlestick on the volar side of the finger is not more painful than the needlestick of the dorsal finger block.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.254 · 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