A 3-Dimensional Anatomic Study of the Distal Biceps Tendon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complete rupture of the distal biceps tendon from its osseous attachment is most often treated with operative intervention. Knowledge of the overall tendon morphology as well as the orientation of the collagenous fibers throughout the musculotendinous junction are key to intraoperative decision making and surgical technique in both the acute and chronic setting. Unfortunately, there is little information available in the literature. PURPOSE: To comprehensively describe the morphology of the distal biceps tendon. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. METHODS: The distal biceps terminal musculature, musculotendinous junction, and tendon were digitized in 10 cadaveric specimens and data reconstructed using 3-dimensional modeling. RESULTS: The average length, width, and thickness of the external distal biceps tendon were found to be 63.0, 6.0, and 3.0 mm, respectively. A unique expansion of the tendon fibers within the distal muscle was characterized, creating a thick collagenous network along the central component between the long and short heads. CONCLUSION: This study documents the morphologic parameters of the native distal biceps tendon. Reconstruction may be necessary, especially in chronic distal biceps tendon ruptures, if the remaining tendon morphology is significantly compromised compared with the native distal biceps tendon. Knowledge of normal anatomical distal biceps tendon parameters may also guide the selection of a substitute graft with similar morphological characteristics. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A thorough description of distal biceps tendon morphology is important to guide intraoperative decision making between primary repair and reconstruction and to better select the most appropriate graft. The detailed description of the tendinous expansion into the muscle may provide insight into better graft-weaving and suture-grasping techniques to maximize proximal graft incorporation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".