MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2271499920 · doi:10.1302/0301-620x.92b6.23457

Pronating osteotomy of the radius for forearm supination contracture in high-level tetraplegic patients

2010· article· en· W2271499920 on OpenAlexaff
Bertrand Coulet, Jorge G. Boretto, Y. Allieu, Charles Fattal, Isabelle Laffont, Michel Chammas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElbow and Forearm Trauma Treatment
Canadian institutionsHand and Upper Limb Clinic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForearmContractureRADIUSMedicineOsteotomyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationOrthodonticsSurgeryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report the results of performing a pronating osteotomy of the radius, coupled with other soft-tissue procedures, as part of an upper limb functional surgery programme in tetraplegic patients with supination contractures. In total 12 patients were reviewed with a mean follow-up period of 60 months (12 to 109). Pre-operatively, passive movement ranged from a mean of 19.2 degrees pronation (-70 degrees to 80 degrees ) to 95.8 degrees supination (80 degrees to 140 degrees ). A pronating osteotomy of the radius was then performed with release of the interosseous membrane. Extension of the elbow was restored postoperatively in 11 patients, with key-pinch reconstruction in nine. At the final follow-up every patient could stabilise their hand in pronation, with a mean active range of movement of 79.6 degrees (60 degrees to 90 degrees ) in pronation and 50.4 degrees (0 degrees to 90 degrees ) in supination. No complications were observed. The mean strength of extension of the elbow was 2.7 (2 to 3) MRC grading. Pronating osteotomy stabilises the hand in pronation while preserving supination, if a complete release of the interosseous membrane is also performed. This technique fits well into surgical programmes for enhancing upper limb function.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British VolumeSame topicElbow and Forearm Trauma TreatmentFrench-language works237,207