In situ compressive properties of the glenoid labrum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to measure the structural stiffness (load/displacement response) and elastic modulus (stress-strain response) of the glenoid labrum at different locations throughout the tissue. It was intended that the results of this work would serve to define the properties of the labrum. This in turn may permit a better understanding of labral function and of the mechanics of injury or degeneration and may ultimately contribute to improving the design of future labral reconstruction procedures. In addition, these data may allow incorporation of labral properties into a glenoid arthroplasty component. The testing procedure consisted of rapid compression of the labrum using a flat indentor. Stiffness and modulus results demonstrated differences between the superior and inferior portions of the labrum. The elastic moduli findings for the labrum were 0.18 +/- 0.17, 0.11 +/- 0.16, and 0.23 +/- 0.20 MPa for the inferior anterior, inferior, and inferior posterior sections, respectively. The superior anterior, superior, and superior posterior sections were respectively 0.19 +/- 0.09, 0. 32 +/- 0.22, and 0.41 +/- 0.32 MPa. These results are similar to those of knee menisci. The modulus findings for the substrate cartilage were 1.92 +/- 0.78, 1.99 +/- 0.70, and 2.00 +/- 1.33 MPa for the inferior anterior, inferior, and inferior posterior sections, respectively. The superior anterior, superior, and superior posterior sections were respectively 1.60 +/- 0.79, 1.29 +/- 0.75, and 1.42 +/- 0.54 MPa, which are comparable to previous cartilage findings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".