MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318935276 · doi:10.1097/phm.0000000000002167

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome in Athletes Who Compete in Wheelchair Sport

2022· article· en· W4318935276 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Marriott, Kate Montgomery, Alexander Whelan

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Nerve Disorders
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarpal tunnel syndromeMedicineAthletesWheelchairPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationEntrapment NeuropathyCarpal tunnelSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this review was to understand the research on carpal tunnel syndrome in athletes who compete in wheelchair sport. Eight articles were identified using the search strategy. The most common sport evaluated was wheelchair basketball ( N = 4). Most athletes were male and were diagnosed with a spinal cord injury. Different clinical and electrodiagnostic criteria have been used to diagnose carpal tunnel syndrome. Two studies incorporated ultrasound into the clinical evaluation of median nerve pathology. The duration of disability and wheelchair use were associated with increased risk of carpal tunnel syndrome in four studies. There was no association between training load and the prevalence of carpal tunnel syndrome. No study has explored the functional implications of carpal tunnel syndrome on sports participation and performance. No study has assessed the prevention and treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome in individuals who compete in wheelchair sport. This review provides an understanding of the important diagnostic tools, and demographic and training risk factors to consider when evaluating para-athletes for carpal tunnel syndrome and highlights areas for future research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & RehabilitationSame topicPeripheral Nerve DisordersFrench-language works237,207