MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995220174 · doi:10.1097/wnp.0000000000000665

Ultrasonography in Distal Ulnar Nerve Neuropathy: Findings in 33 Patients

2019· article· en· W2995220174 on OpenAlexaff
Vasudeva G. Iyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Nerve Disorders
Canadian institutionsCytodiagnostics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUlnar nerveUlnar neuropathyMedicineUltrasonographyRadiologyElbow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Although there are many case reports on the role of ultrasonography (US) in distal ulnar nerve neuropathy (Guyon canal syndrome), there is a paucity of large series in the literature because of its rarity. During an 8-year period, 33 instances of electrodiagnostically confirmed cases underwent US imaging. These cases were analyzed to determine the role of US in uncovering the cause of distal ulnar nerve neuropathy and its contribution to further management. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients diagnosed with distal ulnar nerve neuropathy based on electrodiagnostic criteria, who also had undergone US (measurement of the cross-sectional area and documentation of causes such as cysts and neuromas). RESULTS: US showed normal ulnar nerve in 5, cysts in 10, neuromas in 2, and nonspecific enlargement in 16 patients. Surgery was performed in 15 patients, and the US findings were corroborated in those with cysts and neuromas; 1 patient had an aberrant muscle, and two had fibrous bands constricting the ulnar nerve in the Guyon canal (not detected preoperatively by US imaging). CONCLUSIONS: US imaging detected the underlying cause of distal ulnar nerve neuropathy in a significant percentage of patients, potentially contributing to effective treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NeurophysiologySame topicPeripheral Nerve DisordersFrench-language works237,207