MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409895384

Neurologic complications of distal biceps tendon repair with 1-incision endobutton fixation.

2014· article· en· W2409895384 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. Carroll, Mark P. DaCambra, Kevin A. Hildebrand

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElbow and Forearm Trauma Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBicepsSurgeryElbowFixation (population genetics)TendonBiceps tendonComplication
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Functional outcomes of biceps tendon rupture may be optimized with operative treatment. We conducted a retrospective study to determine the neurologic complications of using 1-incision Endobutton fixation to repair distal biceps tendon ruptures. Patients with distal biceps tendon ruptures treated with a 1-incision technique and Endobutton fixation were included. The primary outcome measure was frequency of neurologic complications. All 50 patients in the study were men. Mean age was 45 years. Twenty-one patients (42%) had at least 1 complication. Injury to the lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve (LACN) was the most common (36%). Mean time to diagnosis was 17 days (range, 0 to 40 days). Posterior interosseous, anterior interosseous, and superficial radial nerve palsies each occurred at a 4% rate. Mean follow-up was 133 days. This study involved the largest cohort of patients with distal biceps tendon rupture repaired with Endobutton fixation using a 1-incision technique. The LACN injury rate (36%) was higher than in other studies using the same technique (0% to 22%). Injury rates for other neural structures near the elbow were comparable to those in the literature.

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)0.000
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 score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicElbow and Forearm Trauma TreatmentFrench-language works237,207