Validity and reliability of the purdue pegboard test in carpal tunnel syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a paucity of validated tests to quantify hand function impairment due to carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). The aim of this study was to test the validity and reliability of the Purdue Pegboard Test (PPT) in CTS patients. We compared 190 CTS patients with 122 healthy, age-matched controls. CTS severity was determined based on electrophysiologic parameters and the Levine Self-Assessment Questionnaire. The time to complete the PPT and the test-retest reliability were tested. The test-retest reliability was high with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.91. Compared to healthy controls, the CTS patients were significantly slower. Although the functional performance generally declined with increasing severity of electrophysiologic abnormalities, the correlation between hand function decline and symptom severity in the young and middle-aged groups was low. We conclude that the PPT is a valid and reliable tool to quantify functional impairment caused by CTS. It can be a useful outcome measure in young and middle-aged patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".