Evaluation of the Cutaneous Silent Period in a Healthy Brazilian Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To establish cutaneous silent period (CSP) normative values and investigate the variables that may influence them. METHODS: We tested 41 healthy subjects. All subjects underwent nerve conduction studies, and we evaluated the CSP in both arms. RESULTS: Four subjects did not have CSP and were excluded. The analyses were performed in the healthy group composed of 23 women and 14 men, with a mean age of 35 (range, 19-64) years. The CSP median duration was 23.2 milliseconds (ms), with 2 to 98th percentile at 11.3 and 48.7 ms. The median onset latency was 87.9 (range, 72.9-109) ms, and the median end latency was 112 (range, 93.8-138) ms. The CSP onset latency positively correlated with height, whereas CSP end latency and duration were weakly but significantly associated with age. Some measurements of ulnar nerve conduction study also correlated with CSP measures. The interrater coefficients for the primary measures of onset and end latency demonstrates the reproducibility of the method. CONCLUSIONS: The CSP with the fifth digit stimulation and recording from the abductor digiti minimi muscle is a valid diagnostic tool that can be used in clinical practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".