MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145045959 · doi:10.1136/jnnp.2008.149393

Foot drop: where, why and what to do?

2008· review· en· W2145045959 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePractical Neurology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Nerve Disorders
Canadian institutionsLions Gate Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoot dropMedicinePopliteal fossaCommon peroneal nerveSciatic nerveLesionSurgeryLumbarFibulaAnkleFoot (prosody)Sciatic nerve injuryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foot drop is a common and distressing problem that can lead to falls and injury. Although the most frequent cause is a (common) peroneal neuropathy at the neck of the fibula, other causes include anterior horn cell disease, lumbar plexopathies, L5 radiculopathy and partial sciatic neuropathy. And even when the nerve lesion is clearly at the fibular neck there are a variety of causes that may not be immediately obvious; habitual leg crossing may well be the most frequent cause and most patients improve when they stop this habit. A meticulous neurological evaluation goes a long way to ascertain the site of the lesion. Nerve conduction and electromyographic studies are useful adjuncts in localising the site of injury, establishing the degree of damage and predicting the degree of recovery. Imaging is important in establishing the cause of foot drop be it at the level of the spine, along the course of the sciatic nerve or in the popliteal fossa; ultrasonography, CT and MR imaging are all useful. For patients with a severe foot drop of any cause, an ankle foot orthosis is a helpful device that enables them to walk better and more safely.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.330 · 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