Dupuytren's contracture and handwork: A case‐control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the association between Dupuytren's contracture (DC), repetitive handwork (RHW), heavy handwork (HHW), and/or vibration exposure. METHODS: Frequency and intensity of the three types of handwork were collected and compared between DC patients and controls. Hours of work were weighted by average "frequency," for RHW, and average "intensity," for HHW and use of vibrating tool. Logistic regression was used to evaluate risk of developing DC associated with the above-mentioned factors. RESULTS: Data from 129 cases (74 clinical, 106 controls) was analyzed. Family history, male gender and age (decades) were associated with increased risk of DC. Results indicate that the risk becomes substantial after about 30 years of steady RHW. Independent effects of intensity-weighted HHW and vibrating exposure were not established. CONCLUSIONS: Frequency-weighted RHW increases DC risk. Additionally, a strong association between DC, male gender and heredity was found.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".