Sensitivity and specificity of clinical testing for carpal tunnel syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present study evaluated the sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of six clinical tests in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). METHODS: There were 29 carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) subjects (mean age 48 years) and 30 control subjects (mean age 45 years). The six clinical tests included Tinel's sign, wrist flexion with fingers extended, wrist flexion with fingers flexed, wrist extension, combined wrist extension/median nerve pressure and combined wrist flexion/median nerve pressure. RESULTS: The highest sensitivity and highest negative predictive value was found with wrist flexion with pressure (96%) and wrist extension with pressure (94%) at 60 s. The highest specificity was found with wrist flexion with fingers flexed for 30 s (95%). The highest positive predictive values were found with the wrist flexion with fingers flexed test for 30 s (91%) and the wrist extension test for 30 s (90%). CONCLUSION: No one test possesses all the qualities necessary to be the ideal clinical test for the detection of carpal tunnel syndrome.
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 | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".