Bibliographic record
Abstract
At times electrodiagnostic medical consultants (EMCs) are asked to perform studies in both a neutral position, and then again after the patient is in a provocative position that exacerbates symptoms, to assess for measurable electrophysiologic changes. While this approach might seem initially appealing, particularly when standard studies are not effective at diagnosis, empiric studies in several conditions have been unimpressive. Studies in median neuropathy at the wrist, thoracic outlet syndrome, piriformis syndrome, and radial tunnel syndrome have failed to demonstrate reproducible changes in nerve conduction studies in positions that exacerbate symptoms. Furthermore, there is lack of a plausible pathophysiologic mechanism for producing both measurable and rapidly reversible electrophysiologic changes after just a few minutes, or less, of compression. Axon loss and demyelination would not be rapidly reversible, and positional changes of 2 min or less (the durations generally studied) would be insufficient to produce measurable nerve ischemia. Last, we have gained a greater appreciation for how much nerves move within limbs with changes in joint position; this movement can lead to misleading changes in nerve conduction studies. It is thus appropriate to conclude that testing nerve conduction in provocative or symptomatic positions adds no value to electrodiagnostic testing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".