La frappe au clavier induit-elle des modifications morphologiques du nerf médian, constituant un facteur de risque du syndrome du canal carpien ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a common condition, affecting 3% of the general population, with a particularly high incidence among working adults. Moreover, computer use is on the rise : in 2019, 79% of employees used a computer, compared to 60% in 2005. This widespread usage is not without health consequences. Objective: This review aims to determine whether typing can induce morphological changes in the median nerve within the carpal tunnel, which could represent a risk factor for CTS. Method: A bibliographic search was conducted on PubMed, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Library. Among the 155 references initially identified, 4 studies were included (3 cohort studies and 1 cross-sectional study). The main outcome was the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the median nerve, measured by ultrasound. The risk of bias in the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: The three cohort studies report a significant increase in the CSA of the median nerve after typing, which is reversible after rest. No study showed a significant increase in the number of participants exceeding the pathological threshold of 11 mm², although a trend was observed after 60 minutes of typing. On the contrary, the cross-sectional study reports a slight non-significant decrease in CSA among intensive users (>4 hours/day). Discussion : The limited number of studies and their heterogeneity are significant limits. According to the AMSTAR-2 tool, this review presents a very low level of confidence. Controlled cohort studies with prospective follow-up would better attribute the effects to keyboard exposure. It would also be relevant to explore differences between desktop and laptop keyboards. Conclusion: Although typing may temporarily modify the characteristics of the median nerve, no statistically significant association with pathological damage was demonstrated, suggesting that typing alone is not an established risk factor.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".