Extensor Indicis Proprius Tendon Transfer for Extensor Pollicis Longus Rupture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Six of 13 patients who underwent extensor indicis proprius (EIP) tendon transfer for extensor pollicis longus (EPL) rupture between 1985 and 1998 were available for long term assessment of the function of the thumb. The presenting problem was the inability to extend the thumb at the interphalangeal (IP) joint. Postoperatively, there was no extension lag at the IP joint of the thumb. Three patients had slightly reduced flexion at the IP joint compared with the unaffected thumb. Five patients showed no extension lag at the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint, whereas one patient had an extension lag of 28°. The mean active flexion at the IP joint of the thumb was 64.5° (range 50° to 77.5°). The mean extension deficit of the index finger at the MCP joint was 7° (range 0° to 20°) compared with the unaffected side that was 5° (range 0° to 12°). Measurements of key pinch and pinch grip were 94% and 82% in the unaffected hand, respectively. Subjective assessment by the patients was rated as excellent by four patients and good by two patients. This particular tendon transfer is recommended for the treatment of EPL rupture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".