HEALTH STATUS FOLLOWING RECESSIONAL ULNAR OSTEOTOMY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes the health status of 31 patients who underwent recessional ulnar osteotomy for ulnocarpal impingement. An additional lunotriquetral fusion was performed in 11/31 patients for joint degeneration. Outcomes included the DASH (Disability of arm, shoulder and hand) questionnaire, SF-36 Acute Health Survey, complications, and satisfaction with surgical outcome. Patients were stratified into two groups for analysis: osteotomy alone and osteotomy + fusion. The overall results indicated that osteotomy plus fusion in patients with more advanced ulnocarpal impingement did not equalise patients' post-operative health status to that reported by patients requiring osteotomy alone. Mean DASH and SF-36 physical component scores indicated better health status in the osteotomy group compared with the osteotomy + fusion group after surgery. Forty-one point nine per cent of patients required plate removal, and scar pain persisted in 58%. One patient in each group developed a non-union requiring revision surgery. Patients in both groups were generally satisfied with their surgical result, with a higher proportion of very or completely satisfied patients in the osteotomy group (65%) compared to the osteotomy + fusion group (27%). Overall, recessional ulnar osteotomy appears to be a successful procedure for the treatment of ulnocarpal impingement.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".