Exploration of outcome measures for assessing orthotic intervention in upper extremity peripheral nerve injuries: 2 case reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In upper extremity peripheral nerve injuries, orthotic intervention has been used as a valuable device to restore function. However, there is lacking evidence to support it. The purpose of this study was to explore the application of body function's outcome measures for orthotic intervention evaluation in patients with peripheral nerve injury. Two participants sustaining a peripheral nerve injury who underwent orthotic intervention were assessed: subject 1 was a 25-year-old man with ulnar and median nerve injury presenting with a composite claw; subject 2, a 28-year-old man with radial nerve injury presenting with a dropped wrist. Strength, range of motion, and electromyography were measured in 2 conditions: wearing the orthosis and without it. The Jamar, Pinch Gauge, a 3D motion capture system (Optitrack-NaturalPoint), and surface electromyography (Trigno Wireless System, Delsys) were the chosen instruments. Both subjects presented differences in grip and pinch strength. In both tasks, subject 1 reached higher wrist extension while wearing the orthosis. Subject 2 reached higher wrist extension and radial deviation while wearing the orthosis. There were marked differences in both tasks for subject 2, especially the maintenance of wrist extension when wearing the orthosis. Electromyographic assessment showed higher root-mean-square values for all muscles, in both tasks for subject 1. For subject 2, a higher root-mean-square value was found for flexor carpi ulnaris during the execution of task 1 wearing the orthosis. Outcome measures of body function can quantify the impact of orthotic intervention in patients sustaining peripheral nerve injury, and therefore, they are feasible for evaluating it.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".