MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7020437005

“Pronation Compensation Sign” as a New Diagnostic Tool for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Prospective Preliminary Study

2024· article· en· W7020437005 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Nerve Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarpal tunnel syndromeCompensation (psychology)Predictive valueRehabilitationCarpal tunnelWrist
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jean Paul Brutus,1 Thiên-Trang Vo,1 Min Cheol Chang2 1Exception MD, Montreal, Canada; 2Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, College of Medicine, Yeungnam University, Daegu, Republic of KoreaCorrespondence: Min Cheol Chang, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, College of Medicine, Yeungnam University, 317-1 Daemyungdong, Namku, Daegu, 705-717, Republic of Korea, Tel +82-53-620-4862, Email wheel633@gmail.comPurpose: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is commonly encountered in clinical practice. Diagnostic tools that currently exist include painful provocative maneuvers, invasive nerve conduction studies and the use of tests that require physician’s direct participation in an era of sanitary crisis and virtual consultations. Therefore, having an easily accessible, reliable and practical tool for diagnosing CTS would be highly beneficial. Herein, we investigated the diagnostic value of the “pronation compensation sign” that we described for diagnosing CTS.Patients and Methods: We included 18 hands with and 18 hands without CTS (age: CTS hands = 52.5 ± 13.8 years, non-CTS hands = 43.2 ± 12.3 years; sex ratio: CTS hands = 12:8, non-CTS hands = 9:9). The presence of the “pronation compensation sign” was evaluated in each included hand. The presence of the “pronation compensation sign” were compared between CTS and non-CTS hands using the chi-squared test. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated of the “pronation compensation sign” for CTS.Results: All 18 hands with CTS showed a positive “pronation compensation sign”, while those without CTS were negative. All 18 hands that were positive for the “pronation compensation sign” were hands with CTS, while those that were negative were hands without CTS. The sensitivity and specificity of the “pronation compensation sign” for diagnosing CTS were both 100%. The PPV and NPV of the “pronation compensation sign” for CTS were both 1.000. The rates of the presence of the “pronation compensation sign” were significantly different between hands with and without CTS (p < 0.001).Conclusion: The “pronation compensation sign” seems a useful tool for diagnosing CTS. We believe that the “pronation compensation sign” will help clinicians diagnose CTS with high diagnostic accuracy.Keywords: carpal tunnel syndrome, pronation compensation sign, diagnosis, accuracy, hand

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.163
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.376 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicPeripheral Nerve DisordersFrench-language works237,207