Brachioradial Pruritus: Clinical, Electromyographic, and Cervical MRI Features in Nine Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Brachioradial pruritus (BRP) is a neuropathic dysesthesia manifesting as pruritus over the dorsolateral forearm. While the etiology is unknown, intensive sun exposure and cervical spine disease have been proposed. This study describes the clinical, electrodiagnostic (EDX), and cervical MRI findings in nine patients diagnosed with BRP. Materials and methods All patients underwent EDX and cervical MRIs. Numerous metrics were documented including presenting symptoms, neurological examination, EDX findings, and cervical MRI features. Results All nine patients experienced pruritus of the arms/forearms, typical of BRP, which was unilateral in eight (89%) cases. Decreased pinprick sensation was noted in the arms/forearms (five [56%] patients) or of the thumbs, index, and/or middle fingers (four [44%] patients). Four (44%) patients had either decreased or absent biceps and brachioradialis deep tendon reflexes (DTRs), while one (11%) patient had decreased triceps and brachioradialis DTRs. The EDX revealed abnormalities in eight (89%) patients. Increased polyphasic units, decreased motor units, and/or denervation changes were recorded by needle electromyography (EMG) in eight (89%) patients: the biceps in seven (88%) and both the brachioradialis and triceps in four (50%) patients. The EMG abnormalities indicated chronic radiculopathy involving C6 in six patients and C5 and C6 in one patient. All nine patients had cervical spine disease, encompassing disc protrusions, spondylosis, spinal stenosis, and/or foraminal stenosis. Conclusions BRP in this series of patients was accompanied by chronic cervical radiculopathy involving predominantly C6 and C5. EDX and cervical spine MR imaging should be considered essential investigations in the evaluation of patients with BRP.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".