MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7098495249

Joiurnial of Neurology, Neurosurgery, anid PsYchiatrY 1981;44:759-767 The pathogenesis of pneumatic tourniquet paralysis in man

2016· article· en· W7098495249 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourniquetParalysisComplicationIschemiaPathogenesisNerve block
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY The relative importance of ischaemic and direct mechanical injury to nerves compressed by a tourniquet, in the pathogenesis of tourniquet paralysis in man has not been established. To investigate this question, conduction in ulnar or median nerve fibres has been measured in healthy subjects both at the level of the pneumatic tourniquet and distal to the tourniquet. Measurement was prior to, for the period of tourniquet inflation, and following release of the tourniquet. The earliest conduction delays and block were observed at the level of the tourniquet, particularly across the proximal tourniquet border zone. However, a proximal to distal progression in conduction abnor-malities distal to the tourniquet suggested that the earlier conduction abnormalities at the level of the tourniquet were primarily ischaemic in origin. Mechanical compression, however, probably contributed to disproportionate conduction delays and blocks across the border zones of the tourniquet. The pneumatic tourniquet is commonly employed by surgeons to provide a bloodless surgical field in the limbs. The complication rate at the University Hospital in London, Ontario has been estimated to

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.005

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies→French-language works237,207→