MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128817602 · doi:10.1111/ene.14759

Cross‐sectional area reference values for peripheral nerve ultrasound in adults: a systematic review and meta‐analysis—Part I: Upper extremity nerves

2021· review· en· W3128817602 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Lena Fisse, Aristeidis H. Katsanos, Ralf Gold, Kalliopi Pitarokoili, Christos Krogias

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neurology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Nerve Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeripheralPeripheral nerveUltrasoundMeta-analysisCross-sectional studyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnatomyRadiologyPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and purpose Measurement of the cross‐sectional area (CSA) of peripheral nerves using ultrasound is useful in the evaluation of focal lesions like entrapment syndromes and inflammatory polyneuropathies. Here, a systematic review and meta‐analysis of published CSA reference values for upper extremity nerves was performed. Methods Available to date nerve ultrasound studies on healthy adults were included and a meta‐analysis for CSA was provided of the following nerves: median nerve at the wrist, forearm, upper arm; ulnar nerve at the Guyon's canal, forearm, elbow, upper arm; radial nerve at the upper arm. Regression and correlation analyses for age, gender, height, weight, geographic continents and publication year are reported. Results Seventy‐four studies with 4186 healthy volunteers (mean age 42.7 years) and 18,226 examined nerve sites were included. The calculated mean pooled CSA of the median nerve at the wrist was 8.3 mm2 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 7.9–8.7, n = 4071), at the forearm 6.4 mm2 (95% CI 5.9–6.9, n = 3021), at the upper arm 8.3 mm2 (95% CI 7.5–9.0, n = 1388), of the ulnar nerve at the Guyon's canal 4.1 mm2 (95% CI 3.6–4.6, n = 1688), at the forearm 5.2 mm2 (95% CI 4.8–5.7, n = 1983), at the elbow 5.9 mm2 (95% CI 5.4–6.5, n = 2551), at the upper arm 6.6 mm2 (95% CI 5.1–6.1, n = 1737) and of the radial nerve 5.1 mm2 (95% CI 4.0–6.2, n = 1787). Substantial heterogeneity across studies (I2 > 50%) was found only for the radial nerve. Subgroup analysis revealed a positive effect of age for the median nerve at the wrist and for height and weight for different sites of the ulnar nerve. Conclusion The first meta‐analysis on CSA reference values for the upper extremities with no or only low heterogeneity of reported CSA values in most nerve sites is provided. Our data facilitate the goal of an international standardized evaluation protocol.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.022
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.266 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations71
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of NeurologySame topicPeripheral Nerve DisordersFrench-language works237,207