MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Case report: Anatomic variant of forearm arteries and its clinical correlation

2009· article· en· W3173790260 on OpenAlexaff
Myroslava Kumka

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Nerve Disorders
Canadian institutionsCanadian Memorial Chiropractic College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForearmMedicineUlnar arteryAnatomyRadial arteryCadaverDeep fasciaBrachial arteryInterosseous membraneUpper limbArterySurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methods Traditional macro‐micro dissections of 30 upper limbs from 15 embalmed cadavers of both sexes and of different ages were performed. Summary of results: An atypical course and branching pattern of forearm vessels was found unilaterally in one male cadaver. The ulnar artery originated as one of the two terminal branches of the brachial artery and was significantly smaller than commonly seen. It descended superficially, covered only by the skin and the anterbrachial fascia. The branching pattern of the radial artery was also atypical. A common interosseous artery which typically arises from the ulnar artery, in this case emerged as a short branch of the radial artery distal to the radial tuberosity. While passing toward the interosseous membrane, the common interosseous artery was separated from the median and anterior interosseous nerves by the ulnar head of the pronator teres muscle and branched out into the anterior and posterior interosseous and ulnar recurrent arteries that supply the major part of the anterior forearm region. Conclusion This anatomical variant of forearm arteries should be considered in diagnosis and treatment since it could complicate radiographic, surgical, and orthopaedic procedures in the forearm, such as radial artery screening for grafting purposes, ligation of a lacerated radial or ulnar artery, and assessment of forearm vessels by color Doppler ultrasonography.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicPeripheral Nerve DisordersFrench-language works237,207