Outcome in adolescence of brachial plexus birth palsy - 69 individuals re-examined after 10-20 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purpose — The frequency and severity of a permanent lesion after brachial plexus birth palsy (BPBP) and its impact on activities of daily living are not well documented. We therefore investigated the outcome of BPBP in adolescents, regarding arm function and consequences for activity and participation.\nParticipants and methods — Of 30,574 babies born at St. Olavs University Hospital in 1991–2000, 91 had BPBP (prevalence 3 per 1,000), and 69 of these individuals were examined at a median age of 14 (10–20) years. The examination included the modified Mallet classification, range of motion, shoulder rotation and grip strength, Assisting Hand Assessment, and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Of the 22 subjects who were not examined, 3 could not be traced and 19 reported having no problems in the affected arm.\nResults — At follow-up, 17 adolescents had a permanent lesion (i.e. individual Mallet subscore below 4) with a median Mallet total score of 15 (9–19), while 52 had good or normal shoulder function (median Mallet total score 25 (23–25)). All participants with a permanent lesion had reduced active shoulder rotation (≤ 15°), 16 had elbow extension deficit, and 10 had subnormal grip strength. External rotation was considerably weaker in the affected shoulder. In addition, they had ineffective use of the affected arm in bimanual activities. Even so, all except 1 were independent in activities of daily living, although 15 experienced minor difficulties. \nInterpretation — Every fourth to fifth child with BPBP had a permanent lesion as an adolescent. External rotation was the most impaired movement. Despite ineffective use of the affected arm in bimanual activities, all of the participants except one were independent in activities of daily living.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".