MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2418541565

[Reasons why musicians consult hand surgeons].

2003· article· en· W2418541565 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Geoffroy Nourissat, Philippe Chamagne, C. Dumontier

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrthopedic surgeryMedicineViolinQuarter (Canadian coin)Physical therapyPianoMusicalGeneral surgeryFamily medicineSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Musicians occasionally consult orthopedic surgeons, particularly upper limb specialists. We wanted to learn more about the reasons why musicians attend orthopedic clinics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analyzed retrospectively 227 case files of musicians who consulted our center between 1994 and 2001. We noted patient related factors (age, gender, musical experience, level of performance, daily practice schedule) and their reasons for consulting (pain, discomfort, advice). We studied the medical history of the patients and searched for predisposing or triggering elements. We also recorded therapeutic options proposed. RESULTS: Our series included 119 men (52%) and 108 women, mean age 35 years with 27 years of musical experience on the average. Instruments played were mainly the piano (41%), the violin (19%), and the guitar (15%). Patients playing wind instruments, who consult more often for ENT problems, were exceptional. On the average, the patients played their instrument 4 hours daily. One-third of the patients were high-level amateurs, one-third were professionals, and one-quarter were lower-level amateurs. There was a small proportion of soloists or professors. Two-thirds of the musicians presented disorders of the musculoskeletal system, particularly trauma sequelae. Signs of overuse were present in 18% of the patients, mainly women, signs of misuse due to inappropriate or defective technique in 8.8%, and dystonia in 5.7%. Psychological problems were noted in 4 patients. More than one half of the patients had obtained medical advice prior to consulting an orthopedic surgeon and the very large majority had been referred by specialized physical therapists. A surgical procedure was proposed for only 19% of the patients presenting an orthopedic disorder. DISCUSSION: This study presents a diversified panel of musicians consulting orthopedic surgery clinics. Practicing schedules varied in the study population from one to five hours daily. More than half the patients complained of pain but 18% consulted because they perceived a problem when playing and 17% consulted simply for advice. Our findings recall that musicians comprise a sensitive population requiring careful overall management. Unlike series published to date, we had a majority of men. Problems involving an orthopedic disorder or trauma and trauma sequelae predominated. In the literature, diagnosis has been oriented by the specialty of the consulting physician. We found that our patients who suffered from overuse had often recently changed their habitual practicing methods or conditions. The diagnosis of misuse was facilitated when the patient was examined with his/her instrument. The low rate of dystonic disorders was probably related to the fact that nearly half of our patients were followed regularly by a physical therapist. We did not observe any case of excessive laxity or Linburg Comstock syndrome which exceptionally have functional impact. The very large majority of our patients were referred by physical therapists and when surgery was necessary, the procedure was performed in accordance with accepted rules concerning the therapeutic management of musicians.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations10
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→French-language works237,207→