MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034881065 · doi:10.5435/jaaos-d-19-00614

Current Concepts in the Management of Trigger Finger in Adults

2020· review· en· W3034881065 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph A. Gil, Andrew M. Hresko, Arnold‐Peter C. Weiss

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsObject Research Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTrigger fingerPsychological interventionPercutaneousIntensive care medicineMedical prescriptionSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trigger finger (TF) is one of the most common causes of hand disability. Immobilization of TF with a joint-blocking orthosis has been demonstrated to effectively relieve pain and improve function. The efficacy of steroid injections for TF varies based on the number of affected digits and the clinical severity of the condition. Up to three repeat steroid injections are effective in most patients. When conservative interventions are unsuccessful, open surgical release of the A1 pulley effectively alleviates the subjective and objective manifestations of TF and currently remains the benchmark procedure for addressing TF. Although several studies have emerged suggesting that a percutaneous approach may result in improved outcomes, this technique demands a learning curve that may predispose patients to higher risk of procedure-related complications. There is no role for preoperative antibiotics in patients who undergo elective soft-tissue procedures of the hand. WALANT anesthesia has gained popularity because it has been associated with improved patient outcomes and a clear cost savings; however, proper patient selection is critical. Similar to other soft-tissue hand procedures, TF surgery rarely necessitates a postoperative opioid prescription.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations93
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic SurgeonsSame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207