MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4235521761 · doi:10.3410/f.1129836.586920

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Ultrasound- or nerve stimulation-guided wrist blocks for carpal tunnel release: a randomized prospective comparative study.

2008· dataset· en· W4235521761 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Chan, Ki Jinn Chin, Anahi Perlas

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2008
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWristUltrasoundMedian nerveStimulationUlnar nerveSensory nerveNerve stimulationCarpal tunnel syndromeCarpal tunnelUltrasound treatmentAnesthesiaNerve blockSurgerySensory systemRadiologyInternal medicineElbow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that ultrasound-guided wrist blocks may be faster to perform, and may increase success rate, compared with nerve stimulation-guided wrist blocks.METHODS: Sixty patients undergoing ambulatory endoscopic carpal tunnel release were randomly allocated to receive median and ulnar nerve blocks using either sensory-motor nerve stimulation (n = 30) or ultrasound guidance (n = 30). Four mL of mepivacaine 1.5% was injected around each nerve. Performance time and onset time of complete sensory block were assessed.RESULTS: Median time to perform both median (ultrasound, 55 [48-60] vs. nerve stimulation, 100 [65-150] seconds, P = .002) and ulnar (ultrasound, 57 [50-70] vs. nerve stimulation, 80 [60-105] seconds, P = .02) nerve blocks were significantly shorter in the ultrasound group. Onset time of complete sensory block in the median (ultrasound, 370 [278-459] vs. nerve stimulation, 254 [230-300] seconds, P = .02) and ulnar (ultrasound, 367 [296-420] vs. nerve stimulation, 241 [210-300] seconds, P = .01) nerve areas were shorter in the nerve stimulation group. The success rate was 93% in both groups.CONCLUSIONS: This randomized prospective study demonstrates that ultrasound-guided wrist nerve blocks are as efficient as those performed with nerve stimulation. PMID: 18675750

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)0.003
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.004

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature→Same topicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→