Systematic prospective electrophysiological studies of the median nerve after simple distal radius fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess whether there is a measurable impairment of median nerve conduction study parameters with uncomplicated distal radius fracture. METHODS: Patients were assessed prospectively at the time of cast removal (visit 1) after a standard 6-8 week immobilization for uncomplicated distal radius fracture. Patients with prior entrapment neuropathy or polyneuropathy were excluded. Patients were asked to report sensory symptoms. Median and ulnar motor and sensory conduction studies were performed bilaterally, as well as transcarpal stimulation. All electrophysiologic studies were repeated at a follow-up visit 2, on average 7.8 weeks later. RESULTS: 39 patients were assessed at visit 1 and 30 (77%) were available for follow-up visit 2. Paresthesia in the median territory on the fractured side were reported in 20% at visit 1 and 26% at visit 2. Electrophysiological evidence of only mild carpal tunnel syndrome was found on the fractured side in 4/39 at visit 1 and 6/30 at visit 2. There were only 2 cases of moderate-marked median neuropathy, both asymptomatic and on the unfractured side. Median motor and sensory latencies and amplitudes did not show statistically significant differences between fractured and unfractured sides with the single exception of median distal motor latency at visit 1. CONCLUSIONS: Median territory paresthesia at the time of cast removal following distal radius fracture are often not associated with electrophysiologic evidence of median neuropathy. Most median nerve electrophysiologic parameters do not significantly differ between the fractured and uninjured sides. Significant traumatic median neuropathy is not likely to be a frequent manifestation of uncomplicated distal radius fracture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic analysis, Level III.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".