Does Wrist Laxity Influence Three-Dimensional Carpal Bone Motion?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous two-dimensional (2D) studies have shown that there is a spectrum of carpal mechanics that varies between row-type motion and column-type motion as a function of wrist laxity. More recent three-dimensional (3D) studies have suggested instead that carpal bone motion is consistent across individuals. The purpose of this study was to use 3D methods to determine whether carpal kinematics differ between stiffer wrists and wrists with higher laxity. Wrist laxity was quantified using a goniometer in ten subjects by measuring passive wrist flexion-extension (FE) range of motion (ROM). In vivo kinematics of subjects' scaphoid and lunate with respect to the radius were computed from computed tomography (CT) volume images in wrist radial and ulnar deviation positions. Scaphoid and lunate motion was defined as "column-type" if the bones flexed and extended during wrist radial-ulnar deviation (RUD), and "row-type" if the bones radial-ulnar deviated during wrist RUD. We found that through wrist RUD, the scaphoid primarily flexed and extended, but the scaphoids of subjects with decreased laxity had a larger component of RUD (R2 = 0.48, P < 0.05). We also determined that the posture of the scaphoid in the neutral wrist position predicts wrist radial deviation (RD) ROM (R2 = 0.46, P < 0.05). These results suggest that ligament laxity plays a role in affecting carpal bone motion of the proximal row throughout radial and ulnar deviation motions; however, other factors such as bone position may also affect motion. By developing a better understanding of normal carpal kinematics and how they are affected, this will help physicians provide patient-specific approaches to different wrist pathologies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".