How electrodiagnosis predicts clinical outcome of focal peripheral nerve lesions
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
This article reviews the electrodiagnostic (EDX) prognostic factors for focal traumatic and nontraumatic peripheral nerve injuries. Referring physicians and patients often benefit from general and nerve-specific prognostic information from the EDX consultant. Knowing the probable outcome from a nerve injury allows the referring physician to choose the best treatment options for his/her patients. Nerve injuries are variable in their mechanism, location, and pathophysiology. The general effects of the injuries on nerve and muscle are well known, but more research is needed for nerve-specific information. Several factors currently known to influence prognosis include: nature of the nerve trauma, amount of axon loss, recruitment in muscles supplied by the nerve, the extent of demyelination, and the distance to reinnervate functional muscles. This article reviews these general concepts and also nerve-specific EDX measures that predict outcome after focal neuropathies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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