MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of ultrasound-assisted precise localization in situ decompression and traditional open incision in situ decompression in the treatment of cubital tunnel syndromea

2023· article· en· W4378678049 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wang Tianliang, Yang Wang, Chaoqun Yuan, Wenjie Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueTurkish Neurosurgery · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Nerve Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryDecompressionCohortHematomaVisual analogue scaleRetrospective cohort studyUltrasoundRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To retrospectively analyze and compare ultrasound-assisted localization in situ with the traditional, open incision method for treating cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 51 patients treated between 2018 and 2022 and categorized them according to treatment method: ultrasound-assisted precise localization in situ decompression (n=21; Cohort 1) and traditional open incision in situ decompression (n=30; Cohort 2). We additionally collected Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores, Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores, modified Bishop scores, aesthetic appearance, preoperative Dellon's stage, and analgesics requirements. Additional dependent variables of interest included operation time, hospital stay duration, complications, and reoperation rate. RESULTS: Neither cohort demonstrated significant changes in Dellon's stage, modified Bishop score, or VAS scores between baseline and 6 weeks postoperative. Cohort 1 showed better aesthetics and postoperative VSS and VAS scores than Cohort 1. In addition, Cohort 1 enjoyed a significantly shorter mean operation time and hospital stay. Cohort 1 had 5 (23.80%) complications, including superficial infection (n=1), hematoma (n=1), and incomplete decompression (n=3). Cohort 2 had 9 complications (30.00%), including superficial infection (n=2), hematoma (n=2), and severe scarring (n=5). The partial, incomplete decompression cases in Cohort 1 and the severe scar case in Cohort 2 were treated with reoperation. CONCLUSION: Both procedures effectively treated most cases of CuTS and were associated with good postoperative outcomes. Patients who underwent ultrasound-assisted localization in situ decompression had shorter surgeries and hospital stays, better postoperative aesthetics, better VSS and VAS scores, and required less pain medication during the postoperative period. Traditional open incision in situ produced a more thorough decompression.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTurkish NeurosurgerySame topicPeripheral Nerve DisordersFrench-language works237,207