MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1944093642 · doi:10.1002/jor.22692

Effect of timing of surgical SSP tendon repair on muscle alterations

2014· article· en· W1944093642 on OpenAlexafffund
Hans K. Uhthoff, Elizabeth Coletta, Guy Trudel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Research® · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMuscle bellyMedicineTendonSupraspinatus muscleAnatomyAdipose tissueSurgeryIntramuscular fatInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To investigate the impacts of delayed repairs of a supraspinatus tendon tear on the supraspinatus muscle, we used an animal model data from two previously published studies in which one supraspinatus (SSP) tendon was detached. In one cohort, the rabbits were killed in groups of 10 at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. In the other cohort, a repair was done at these time points, 12 rabbits each, and the animals killed were 12 weeks later. SSP fossa volume (Muscle belly plus extramuscular fat [e-fat] volume), percentage of intramuscular fat (i-fat), and muscle tissue volume (muscle belly volume minus i-fat), as well as CT determination of e-fat and i-fat of both cohorts, were compared. Fossa volume increased (p < 0.05). Muscle belly and muscle tissue volumes did not increase after repair (p > 0.05), but early repair prevented further volume losses, a fact not seen after 8 and 12 weeks delay of repair. No reversal of e-fat or of i-fat occurred, in fact i-fat almost doubled after 4 weeks delay of repair (p < 0.05). CT studies confirmed the fat results. We conclude that early repair prevented loss of muscle belly and muscle tissue volumes, but that it has no positive influence on fat accumulation.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic Research®Same topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207