MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202675554 · doi:10.1177/17531934211035642

Presentation and aetiology of paediatric trigger finger: a systematic review

2021· review· en· W3202675554 on OpenAlexaff
Alison Wong, Michael Wong, Robin Parker, Margaret Wheelock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hand Surgery (European Volume) · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)Dalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTrigger fingerCarpal tunnel syndromePresentation (obstetrics)EtiologyMucopolysaccharidosisConcomitantSurgeryConservative managementCase presentationPediatricsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paediatric trigger finger is a rare condition distinct from paediatric trigger thumb and adult trigger digits. We performed a systematic review of paediatric trigger finger presentation and aetiology in order to guide workup and management. Fifty-one studies with 193 patients and 398 trigger fingers were included. Most patients had a single, unilateral trigger finger (54%). Fifty-five patients (29%) had an underlying condition, such as mucopolysaccharidosis; these cases appeared to be associated with multiple or bilateral trigger fingers or with carpal tunnel syndrome. All patients with mucopolysaccharidosis were treated surgically. Conservative management was reported in 33% of all patients, and two-thirds of these did not need further intervention. Patients undergoing surgical release infrequently had recurrence of triggering (6%). We propose an algorithmic approach for patients presenting with paediatric trigger finger. Presence of bilateral or multiple trigger digits or concomitant carpal tunnel syndrome should raise suspicion for an atypical underlying 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.276 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hand Surgery (European Volume)Same topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207