MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387157067 · doi:10.1177/15589447231198268

Outcomes Following Surgical Interventions for Isolated Lunotriquetral Interosseous Ligament Injuries: A Systematic Review

2023· review· en· W4387157067 on OpenAlexaff
Mohanad Omar-Hossein, Jacob C. K. Leung, Joyce Munaku, Danielle Rodzik, Armaghan Dabbagh, Mike Szekeres

Bibliographic record

VenueHand · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWrist painLigamentArthrodesisWristUlnaRange of motionSurgeryPsychological interventionPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ulnar-sided wrist pain can be attributed to various bony and ligamentous structures. The purpose of this review is to compare outcomes following surgical interventions for isolated lunotriquetral (LT) interosseous ligament injuries in adults. We assessed 202 procedures from 9 retrospective case series studies of low to moderate quality based on the Structured Effectiveness Quality Evaluation Scale. The comparative outcomes (ie, range of motion, pain, strength, quality of life, complications, return to work, and patient satisfaction) were aggregated and categorized under arthrodesis, capsulodesis, ligament repairs and reconstruction, and ulna shortening osteotomy procedures. Although the comparison of outcomes was largely inconclusive due to the heterogeneity and the omission of preoperative characteristic data, we did observe higher complications and reoperation rates post LT arthrodesis. It is recommended that all outcomes be standardized and presented uniformly with best practices developed to better characterize the injury's severity and integrity in future studies.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHandSame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207