Cutaneous sensory outcomes from three transhumeral targeted reinnervation cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although targeted muscle reinnervation has been shown to be effective in enhancing prosthetic control for upper limb amputees, restored hand sensations have been variable. An understanding of possible sensory feedback channels is crucial in working toward more effective closed-loop prosthetic control. OBJECTIVES: To compare sensory outcomes of different targeted sensory reinnervation approaches. STUDY DESIGN: Case series, cross-sectional, and retrospective. METHODS: Three transhumeral amputees that had undergone different sensory reinnervation approaches were recruited. Skin pressure sensitivity thresholds and anatomic sensory mapping were performed using Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments. The clinical charts of the subjects were reviewed to compare the sensory maps performed during the earlier post-reinnervation period. RESULTS: While the first two subjects achieved return of hand sensations on the stump skin in early follow-up, the maps showed attenuation over time. The last subject developed discrete sensations of all digits in the recipient cutaneous nerve territories away from the reinnervated muscles. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm that it is feasible to restore hand sensation after transhumeral targeted reinnervation, but there is a significant intersubject variability. The intrafascicular approach may be particularly effective in restoring digit sensation and deserves further exploration, as do factors affecting stability of the hand maps over time. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In addition to enabling intuitive motor control of myoelectric prosthesis, targeted reinnervation can also result in sensory restoration of the hand. Documentation of sensory mapping present after reinnervation may assist with exploring future techniques for sensory enhancement, with the goal of working toward closed-loop prosthetic control.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".