Assessment of the hand arm vibration syndrome: thermometry, plethysmography and the Stockholm Workshop Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Stockholm Workshop Scale (SWS) provides a staging scheme for hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) based on subjective history. Cold provocation finger thermometry and plethysmography are commonly used objective tests for the vascular component of HAVS. AIM: To examine the correlation between the cold provocation tests and SWS vascular stage. A secondary goal was to evaluate the correlation between cold provocation finger plethysmography and thermometry testing. METHODS: Patients investigated for HAVS at St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, were subjected to the same protocol including a questionnaire, clinical assessment and objective testing. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated for the vascular tests with the SWS and for the vascular tests themselves. Logistic regression models controlled for age, smoking, use of vasoactive medications and time since last vibration exposure. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-nine patients investigated for HAVS consented to participate in the study. The correlation coefficients for plethysmography (rho = 0.14) and thermometry (rho = 0.18) with the SWS were not statistically significant. Plethysmography and thermometry results were significantly correlated (rho = 0.47, P < 0.001). Logistic regression showed plethysmography and thermometry to weakly predict SWS vascular stage (OR 1.5 and 1.3, respectively). None of the potential confounders had a significant effect in the models. CONCLUSION: The results of plethysmography and thermometry did not significantly correlate with SWS vascular stage in this study. The objective tests did correlate with each other, suggesting that they are reliable measures of similar phenomena likely related to underlying vascular pathology.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".