MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996142877 · doi:10.7759/cureus.6447

Modeling the Articular Surface of the Hamate with the Fourth and Fifth Metacarpal Bases with Three-dimensional Laser Scanning

2019· article· en· W2996142877 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew McRae, Stephanie Dreckmann, Sandeep Sandhu, Paul Binhammer

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineArticular surfaceJoint (building)OsteoarthritisInterphalangeal JointOrthodonticsAnatomyCadaverNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Our purpose is to highlight the articulating surfaces between the hamate and fourth and fifth metacarpal (MC) bases of the hand using three- dimensional (3D) laser scanning. This joint surface is used for osteochondral grafting of small joints such as the proximal interphalangeal joint using the hamate articular surface. It is an important joint for hand function and can develop osteoarthritis. Methods NextEngine (NextEngine, Santa Monica, CA) 3D laser scanner (accurate to ±100 µm) was used to capture the articular surfaces of the hamate with the fourth and fifth MC bases of 10 embalmed cadaver right hands. Articular surfaces were defined and modeled using Amira (Visage Imaging, Andover, MA) and MatLab7 (MathWorks, Natick, MA). Articular surfaces were evaluated in terms of size, shape, the radius of curvature (ROC) by three points and sphere-fit (SF) and inter-facet angles. Results In the fourth carpometacarpal (CMC) joint, the hamate articular surface with the 4th MC was single, concave, and well approximated by SF ROC (mean: 11.18 mm). The fourth MC base was convex; SF ROC mean was 9.94 mm. Six of the 10 articulations flattened from volar to dorsal. In the fifth CMC joint, we noted a bicondylar construct. The two hamate surfaces were concave while MC bases were convex. The joint surface was best approximated with two overlapping spheres. Ulnar sphere averaged 30.21% of the surface of the hamate and 29% of the MC base. Ulnar hamate SF ROC mean was 11.63 mm, and ulnar fifth MC SF ROC mean was 8.07 mm. Radial SF hamate mean was 7.92 mm, and the radial fifth MC SF mean was 7.47 mm. The mean of the angle of divergence between the condylar spheres represented on the hamate surface was 21.4°, while that of the fifth MC base angle of divergence was 10.99°. The mean of the angle formed between the fourth and fifth CMC joints at the hamate was 31.69°. A single articular facet between the fourth and fifth MC bases was concave on fourth and convex on the fifth MC base. Conclusions and clinical relevance Laser scanning of cadaver fourth and fifth CMC joints clarified the normal anatomy of the osteochondral joint surface. The topography of the joints was well-approximated by SF with curved surfaces in both the anteroposterior and radial-ulnar planes with the fifth CMC having two unique surfaces for articulation. We noted the distinct radial and ulnar articulating surfaces of the fifth CMC joint, which would permit flexion and limited supination.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207