MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126810078 · doi:10.1002/jor.22571

Effect of grip type, wrist motion, and resistance level on pressures within the carpal tunnel of normal wrists

2014· article· en· W2126810078 on OpenAlexaff
Raymond W. McGorry, Nils Fallentin, Johan Hviid Andersen, Peter J. Keir, Torben Bæk Hansen, Glenn Pransky, Jia‐Hua Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Research® · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWristCarpal tunnel syndromeCarpal tunnelMedicineOrthodonticsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnatomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elevated carpal tunnel pressure (CTP) has been associated with carpal tunnel syndrome. This study systematically evaluated the effect of wrist motion resistance and grip type on CTP during wrist motion typical of occupational tasks. CTP during four wrist motion patterns, with and without resistance, and with and without gripping, was measured in vivo in 14 healthy individuals. CTP measured during compound motions fell between that measured in the cardinal planes of wrist flexion/extension and radial/ulnar deviation. Generally, with no active gripping there was little pressure change due to wrist angular displacement or resistance level. However, concurrent active pinch or power grip increased CTP particularly in motions including extension. CTP typically did not increase during wrist flexion, and in fact often decreased. Extension motions against resistance when employing a pinch or power grip increase CTP more than motions with flexion. Results could help inform design or modification of wrist motion intensive occupational tasks. © 2014 The Authors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations30
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic Research®Same topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207