Guidelines for Wrist Posture Based on Carpal Tunnel Pressure Thresholds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop work guidelines for wrist posture based on carpal tunnel pressure. BACKGROUND: Wrist posture is considered a risk factor for distal upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders, and sustained wrist deviation from neutral at work may be associated with carpal tunnel syndrome. However, the physiologic basis for wrist posture guidelines at work is limited. METHODS: The relationship of wrist posture to carpal tunnel pressure was examined in 37 healthy participants. The participants slowly moved their wrists in extension-flexion and radioulnar deviation while wrist posture and carpal tunnel pressure were recorded. The wrist postures associated with pressures of 25 and 30 mmHg were identified for each motion and used to determine the 25th percentile wrist angles (the angles that protect 75% of the study population from reaching a pressure of 25 or 30 mmHg). RESULTS: Using 30 mmHg, the 25th percentile angles were 32.7 degrees (95% confidence interval [CI] = 27.2-38.1 degrees) for wrist extension, 48.6 degrees (37.7 -59.4 degrees) for flexion, 21.8 degrees (14.7-29.0 degrees) for radial deviation, and 14.5 degrees (9.6-19.4 degrees) for ulnar deviation. For 25 mmHg, the 25th percentile angles were 26.6 degrees and 37.7 degrees for extension and flexion, with radial and ulnar deviation being 17.8 degrees and 12.1 degrees, respectively. CONCLUSION: Further research can incorporate the independent contributions of pinch force and finger posture into this model. APPLICATION: The method presented can provide wrist posture guidelines for the design of tools and hand-intensive tasks.
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 | 0.012 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".