Distribution of strength potential of the thumb muscles and their relationship to trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis: An exploratory cadaveric study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ten muscles of the thumb allow for a variety of movement combinations yielding similar functional outcomes yet using different load transmission with different biomechanical stresses resulting in heterogenous trapeziometacarpal wear patterns. Our exploratory study investigates the correlation between the severity and location of trapeziometacarpal joint osteoarthritis and estimated individual thumb muscles maximal force. METHOD: Normalized muscle mass to body mass and physiological cross-sectional area ratio were calculated following systematic muscular dissection of 19 cadaveric hands, 60 % males, average age 79.2, SD = 7.1. Correlations were analyzed with 3 different measures of articular degenerations. FINDINGS: Moderate negative correlation was found between Eaton-Glickel osteoarthritis grade and normalized muscle mass of opponens pollicis (rₛ = -0.59, p < .01) and abductor pollicis longus (rₛ = -0.60, p < .01). Moderate negative correlation was also found between trapeziometacarpal index and normalized opponens pollicis and abductor pollicis longus muscle mass (rₛ = -0.63, p < .01) and (rₛ = -0.51, p < .05), respectively. No correlation was identified between physiological cross-sectional area ratios and the above degeneration metrics. INTERPRETATION: Our current findings identified moderate negative correlations between the normalized mass to body mass of abductor pollicis longus and opponens pollicis for both Eaton-Glickel osteoarthritis grade and trapeziometacarpal index, which would support the current hand therapy exercise recommendations for the arthritic trapeziometacarpal population. Caution must be taken in the interpretation of correlations with articular zones degradation as our analytical power was reduced by the complete eburnation of few articular surfaces.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".