Clinical outcome of elbow extension restoration by posterior deltoid-to-triceps transfer in tetraplegia: a retrospective review of 51 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we report the functional and perceived outcomes of 51 posterior deltoid-to-triceps transfers in patients with tetraplegia. With a minimum follow-up of 12 months, patients were divided into two subcategories based on preoperative posterior deltoid strength: Medical Research Council (MRC) 3 and MRC 4/5. At 12-month follow-up, all patients achieved antigravity elbow extension. Patients with a stronger posterior deltoid (MRC 4/5) attained an elbow extension with a strength grade MRC 3.7 (SD 0.6), while those with a weaker posterior deltoid (MRC 3) reached an elbow extension of MRC 3.1 (SD 0.6). Patient-reported outcome measure was evaluated using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and demonstrated a significant improvement for both performance and satisfaction. No difference in the COPM scores could be found between the two subcategories. This study indicates that tetraplegic patients with a posterior deltoid strength grade of both MRC 4/5 as well as MRC 3 benefit from the procedure. Level of evidence: III
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".