Sonographic pattern of median nerve enlargement in Hansen's neuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Median nerve enlargement in leprosy seems to be more proximal than in carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), but this feature has not been studied systematically. The aim of the study was to compare the sites of median nerve enlargement in patients with leprosy with that of patients with CTS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Transverse sections of the median nerve were recorded from wrist to the mid-forearm (at distal wrist crease and at 2-cm: M1, 4-cm: M2, 6-cm: M3, 8-cm: M4 and 10-cm: M5, proximal to the distal wrist crease in the forearm) in patients with leprosy, CTS and healthy subjects using high-resolution ultrasound. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients each with leprosy and CTS were compared with healthy controls. Patients with leprosy included 6 (23.1%), 7 (26.9%), 7 (26.9%) and 6 (23.1%) patients with borderline tuberculoid, borderline-borderline, borderline lepromatous and lepromatous leprosy, respectively. Cross-sectional area (CSA) of median nerve was increased in all patients with leprosy as compared to healthy controls at all points of measurement. CSA was higher among patients with leprosy as compared to CTS at all points except at the wrist. In patients with leprosy, the maximal enlargement was noted 2-cm (M1) proximal to the wrist crease with gradual tapering of the CSA proximally (p < .05). In contrast, in patients with CTS the median nerve was maximally enlarged at the distal wrist crease (p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Median nerve enlargement 2-cm proximal to the distal wrist crease distinguishes leprosy from CTS. This important discriminating sign can be used at point-of-care to identify patients with leprosy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".