Pronator Teres Reflex and the Diagnosis of C6 and C7 Radiculopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Neck roots lesions are among the etiologies of cervical and arm pain. A detailed patient evaluation could assist the diagnosis, reduce imaging requests, and promote the treatment of cervical pain. We tried to estimate the value of pronator teres reflex in C6 and C7 roots irritation. Methods: The present study comprises 118 participants, including 56 patients with C6 and C7 lesions and 62 normal controls. The reliability and usefulness of this reflex in C6 and C7 roots lesions were compared to positive electromyography and imaging with magnetic resonance. Results: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for pronator teres reflex were 36.4%, 13.6%, 64.8%, and 4.6%, respectively. Discussion: This reflex can be considered an additional reflex during the physical examination for C6 and C7 nerve roots injury, but its diagnostic value for C6 and C7 radiculopathy is unreliable to be used for screening purposes.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".