Suitability of Using the Hamate for Reconstruction of the Finger Middle Phalanx Base: An Assessment of Cartilage Thickness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osteochondral grafts are indicated for reconstructing the finger middle phalanx base when there is greater than 50% involvement of the articular surface and significant comminution. This study aims to compare the cartilage thickness of the distal surface of the hamate to the finger middle phalanx base to assess its suitability as an osteochondral graft. METHODS: A 3-dimensional laser scanner and computer modelling techniques were utilized to determine the cartilage thickness of the distal surface of the hamate, and finger middle phalanx base using cadaver specimens. The mean, maximum, and coefficient of variation (CV%; a measure of uniformity of cartilage distribution), as well as cartilage distribution maps were determined. RESULTS: The mean cartilage thickness of the hamate was 0.73 ± 0.08 mm compared to the average mean thickness of the finger middle phalanx base of 0.40 ± 0.12 mm. The maximum cartilage thickness of the hamate was 1.27 ± 0.14 mm compared to the average maximum of the finger middle phalanx base of 0.67 ± 0.14 mm. The CV% of the hamate was 27.8 ± 4.2 compared to the average CV% for the finger middle phalanx base of 26.6 ± 8.1. The hamate and finger middle phalanx base have maximum areas that were most frequently at or spanning the median ridge; however, this was more consistently observed with the hamate. CONCLUSION: The distal surface of the hamate is a suitable osteochondral graft with respect to cartilage thickness and distribution providing sufficient cartilage for reconstruction of the finger middle phalanx base.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".