NeuFlex compared with Sutter prostheses: A blind, prospective, randomised comparison of Silastic metacarpophalangeal joint prostheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forty patients (156 metacarpophalangeal joints) with mutilating rheumatoid arthritis were randomly allocated in a blinded manner to have either NeuFlex or Sutter implants. Indications for operation were pain and severe deformity. Thirty-nine patients were followed up postoperatively for one year. An independent physiotherapist and occupational therapist examined each one. Grip strength, range of motion, and pain during activity and at rest were measured. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) assessed the patients' evaluation of their occupational performance. Both groups had overall good results, but it seems that though patients' mobility and grip strength improve considerably, pain seems to do so only relatively. Most patients seem to be satisfied with the operation and their functional gain. Five out of 78 Sutter and two out of 78 NeuFlex implants broke. We found no major differences between the two designs, but the patients in the NeuFlex group seemed to be more satisfied with their occupational performance (COPM performance) (p=0.05).
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".