MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3100370471 · doi:10.1097/gox.0000000000003071

Functional Outcomes of Major Upper Extremity Replantation: A Scoping Review

2020· review· en· W3100370471 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global Open · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReplantationElbowCINAHLAmputationForearmUpper limbPhysical therapySurgeryPsychological interventionNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Traumatic upper limb amputations proximal to the carpus are devastating injuries. Existing literature on outcomes following replantation is limited. Our objective was to perform a scoping review of (1) functional outcomes; (2) return to work data; and (3) secondary surgeries required following proximal to carpus replantation. METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and CINAHL was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. All studies reporting on functional outcomes, return to work, or secondary surgeries following replant of traumatic proximal to carpus amputation were included. RESULTS: Of the 753 articles, 13 studies were included, accounting for 136 major upper extremity replants (0 shoulder, 36 arm, 14 elbow, 86 forearm). Average age was 35 (24 -47) years, with average follow-up of 8 years (2 -18). Chen's Functional Criteria was the most common tool for reporting outcomes (10/13). Level of injury was related to functional outcome, with excellent to good Chen scores for replants distal to elbow, and poor Chen scores for replants at or proximal to elbow. Return to work correlated with level of replantation, with successful return for 65% of forearm, 43% of elbow, and 32% of arm replants. A mean of 2.4 secondary procedures were required. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into major upper extremity replantation, to assist in patient counseling and surgical decision making. Good functional outcomes and successful return to work are directly related to level of injury following major upper extremity replant. Patients should be counseled that more than 1 secondary procedure may be required.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.287 · 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