A Three months Electrodiagnostic Follow-Up of Patients Suspected of having Ulnar Nerve Involvement at Elbow Level with Normal Conventional Electrodiagnostic Study at First Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Compression of ulnar nerve at the elbow is the second most common peripheral neuropathy of the upper extremity. Objective: Due to the lack of the gold diagnostic standard for ulnar nerve involvement at elbow level (UNE) and the lack of sufficient study in this field, we decided to evaluate patients with symptoms of this disease who have normal conventional electrodiagnostic study (EDX) in first evaluation. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 18 persons were selected from patients who were referred to the clinic of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. If conventional EDX was normal, compound nerve action potential (CNAP) test (peak latency and amplitude) was carried out. Patients with normal conventional EDX but abnormal ulnar CNAP included to our study. After 3 months, if they had not been treated for ulnar neuropathy, they were reexamined by conventional EDX plus ulnar CNAP measurement. Results: In total, 18 patients (11 females, 7 males) aged 28-58 years old (mean = 40.11) were analyzed in this study. After 3 months, 14 patients (77.8%) demonstrated parameter changes consistent with UNE in conventional EDX. Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, ulnar CNAP has diagnostic value in patients with symptoms of UNE who have normal routine EDX. Therefore, ulnar CNAP should be taken into account for early diagnosis of ulnar neuropathy when routine electrodiagnostic tests are normal.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".