Flexor tendon repair: recent changes and current methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current clinical methods of flexor tendon repair are remarkably different from those used 20 years ago. This article starts with a review of the current methods, followed by presentation of past experience and current status of six eminent hand surgery units from four continents/regions. Many units are using, or are moving toward using, the recent strong (multi-strand) core suture method together with a simpler peripheral suture. Venting of the critical pulleys over less than 2 cm length is safe and favours functional recovery. These repair and recent motion protocols lead to remarkably more reliable repairs, with over 80% good or excellent outcomes achieved rather consistently after Zone 2 repair along with infrequent need of tenolysis. Despite slight variations in repair methods, they all consider general principles and should be followed. Outcomes of Zone 2 repairs are not dissimilar to those in other zones with very low to zero incidence of rupture.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it