Extensor tendon repairs: consensus, current guidelines and recommendations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current classification of extensor tendon zones has remained unchanged for several decades. In this article, a panel of international experts give their consensus and diverse views about the classification and suggest treatment guidelines for acute extensor tendon injuries for each zone. Collectively they recommend adaptation of a classification which is simpler and resembles that for flexor tendon classification. They outline specific areas of extensor tendon zones, i.e. the distal parts of the fingers, which need particular attention and specific treatment approaches. The treatment approaches of the other extensor tendon zones can generally follow the same or a similar surgical repair principle and methods, and rehabilitation protocols currently used for flexor tendon injuries. Consolidation of the classification, surgery and rehabilitation of both flexor and extensor tendons is expected to make surgical decision easier and allow wider adaptation of the clinical methods applicable to both flexors and extensors.
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.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it