Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Electrodiagnostic studies do not differentiate severe lesions of the median nerve in the distal forearm from those within the carpal tunnel when compound muscle action potential over the abductor pollicis brevis and sensory nerve action potential are absent; needle electromyography showing denervation confined to the abductor pollicis brevis is presumed to suggest localization to the carpal tunnel, although the lesion may be in the forearm. Under these circumstances, the patient may undergo carpal tunnel release without benefit. This retrospective study looked at patients with clinical picture of severe carpal tunnel syndrome who had no compound muscle action potential or sensory nerve action potential on median nerve stimulation; the goal was to determine how often ultrasonic imaging pointed to a location other than the carpal tunnel. METHODS: Patients with clinical picture of severe carpal tunnel syndrome with no sensory nerve action potential and no compound muscle action potential over the abductor pollicis brevis and second lumbrical underwent ultrasonic imaging; criteria for localization to the carpal tunnel included significant increase in the cross-sectional area of the median nerve at the carpal tunnel inlet and increase in the wrist/forearm cross-sectional area ratio. RESULTS: In 42 of 46 cases, entrapment at the carpal tunnel was confirmed by ultrasonography; in four patients, other causes were located proximal to the carpal tunnel. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasonic imaging is useful not only for confirming entrapment of the median nerve at the carpal tunnel in patients with nonlocalizing electrodiagnostic studies but also in detecting pathology in the forearm, which may mimic severe carpal tunnel syndrome.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".