MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2730213721 · doi:10.1002/mus.22199

Sonographic features in hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsies

2011· article· en· W2730213721 on OpenAlexaff
Davyd R. Hooper, W. Lawson, Lisa Smith, Steven K. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHereditary Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesHamilton General HospitalUniversity of ManitobaRiverview Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkleTibial nerveElbowWristUlnar nerveUlnar neuropathyMedian nerveUltrasoundAnatomySurgeryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRadiologyInternal medicineStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Diagnostic nerve ultrasound is becoming more commonly used by both radiologists and clinicians. The features of different neuromuscular conditions must be described to broaden our understanding and ability to interpret findings. METHODS: Our study examines the sonographic features of 7 subjects with hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsies (HNPP) in comparison to 32 controls by measuring the nerve cross-sectional area (CSA) of the median, ulnar and tibial nerves. RESULTS: Significant differences (P < 0.05) in nerve size were found. The HNPP group had a larger CSA for the median nerve at the wrist and ulnar nerve at the elbow (entrapment sites), but not the forearms. The tibial nerve at the ankle was also larger in the HNPP group, suggesting possible concomitant tibial neuropathy at the ankle. CONCLUSION: These results will help shape imaging protocols to better detect conditions with non-uniform nerve enlargements.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations50
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicHereditary Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207