A bionic hand versus a replanted hand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Evaluation of the hand function affected when replacing a malfunctioning hand by a bionic hand. Design: Case report. Subjects: One individual that wished for a better quality of life after unsatisfying hand function following a replantation. Methods: A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of body functions as well as activity performance and participation before and after a planned amputation and prosthetic fitting is presented. Results: Improvements were seen in the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that were used regarding activity (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand [DASH] and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure [COPM]), pain (Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory [NPSI], Brief Pain Inventory [BPI], Visual Analogue Scale [VAS]), cold intolerance (CISS) and health related quality of life (SF-36), as well as in the standardised grip function test, Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure (SHAP). No referred sensations were seen but the discriminative touch on the forearm was improved. In the qualitative interview, a relief of pain, a lack of cold intolerance, improved appearance, better grip function and overall emotional wellbeing were expressed. Conclusions: The planned amputation and subsequent fitting and usage of a hand prosthesis were satisfying for the individual with positive effects on activity and participation. Clinical relevance: When the hand function after a hand replantation does not reach satisfactory levels, a planned amputation and a prosthetic hand can be the right solution.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".