Three-dimensional printed customized versus conventional plaster brace for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled crossover trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the non-operative management of trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis with a three-dimensional (3-D) printed patient-customized brace compared with a conventional plaster brace. Fifty-two patients with symptomatic trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis were enrolled in a 9-week crossover study, which was designed as a randomized controlled trial of two periods of 4-week brace therapies. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction measured with the Dutch version of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology questionnaire survey. Secondary outcomes included pain, patient-reported function, functional hand strength measured by pinch and grip strength, and compliance assessed through a daily log of self-reported brace usage. The 3-D printed patient-customized brace had higher patient satisfaction and compliance than the conventional plaster brace. Patients preferred the 3-D printed customized brace (93%) rather than the conventional plaster brace (7%). This suggests that the 3-D printed patient-customized brace is effective in the non-operative management of trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis. Level of evidence: I
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it