Clinical evaluation of thumb base osteoarthritis: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Thumb base osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent hand OA phenotype, associated with specific risk factors, treatment strategies, and requiring a distinct subset of evaluative approaches. This paper aimed at surveying our clinical evaluative methods and identifying gaps in our ability to capture the thumb's unique attributes and how they could impact our treatment recommendations. Methods: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology to gather relevant published and non-published articles regarding clinical tests currently available to assess the physical presentation of thumb base OA with special consideration of its specific multifactorial parameters namely architecture, ligaments, biomechanics, neuromuscular control, and proprioception. A full search strategy of MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Clinical Trials.gov from their inception through May 2020 was performed. Results: Of 1936 citation identified, 54 met the inclusion criteria. Fifty-two clinical physical tests for the evaluation of thumb base OA were extracted, most of which well suited to address research questions regarding efficacy of clinical intervention, however providing limited information regarding the underlying impairments of ligaments, biomechanics, neuromuscular or proprioceptive components. Conclusions: The tests and measures specific to the basal thumb OA phenotype, and capable of isolating its multifactorial contributors are scarce. Our limited physical assessment repertoire impedes our ability to describe and answer explicative research questions. Without these we cannot evaluate the effect of conservative management and provide specific treatment recommendations. Further research is needed to develop and validate distinct clinical tools for this debilitating pathology.
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 | 0.017 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".