Visual Estimation of Dupuytren’s Flexion Contractures—A Prospective Comparative Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Surgeons and resident physicians in a clinic setting often visually estimate Dupuytren flexion contractures of the hand to follow disease progression and decide on management. No previous study has compared visual estimates with a standardized instrument to ensure measurement reliability. METHODS: Consecutive patients consulted for Dupuytren flexion contractures of the hand had individual joint contractures estimated in degrees (°) by both a resident physician and staff surgeon. Estimates were compared with goniometer measurements to generate intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and residents and surgeons were compared based on their accuracy. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients enrolled in this study, which provided a total of 80 hand joints for analysis. Resident physicians achieved an ICC of 0.42, which indicates poor reliability. The hand surgeon achieved an ICC of 0.86, which indicates high reliability. The surgeon also had better accuracy than the residents. CONCLUSION: Hand surgeons should be mindful of the limitations of visual estimates of Dupuytren flexion contractures, particularly when conducted by trainees. Joint angle measurements taken for the purposes of research should be done with a goniometer at minimum.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".