MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971337961 · doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0684-7

Suspension Suture Augmentation for Repair of Coracoclavicular Ligament Disruptions

2009· article· en· W1971337961 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tsan-Wen Huang, Pang‐Hsin Hsieh, Kuo-Chung Huang, Kuo‐Chin Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder and Clavicle Injuries
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoracoclavicular ligamentSurgeryConfidence intervalRadiographyFibrous jointLigamentAcromioclavicular jointTendonInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Surgical reconstruction of the coracoclavicular ligament is a fundamental part of management of high-grade acromioclavicular dislocations and Type II lateral third clavicular fractures. However, no single surgical procedure is fully satisfactory because of failure or complications. We present an alternative coracoclavicular stabilization technique, which avoids the use of hardware or tendon graft, that was used in 10 consecutive patients with complete coracoclavicular ligament disruptions. These patients were followed for a minimum of 14 months (average, 34.8 months; range, 14-55 months). At the final followup, functional outcome measurement instruments (University of California-Los Angeles shoulder rating system and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index) and radiographic analysis were adopted as the main outcome measures of shoulder function. The mean University of California-Los Angeles shoulder rating score and the mean Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index aggregation score at 12 months after surgery were 33.8 (95% confidence interval, 32.8-34.8) and 93.4 (95% confidence interval, 88.2-98.6), respectively. The radiographic analysis revealed all patients had maintained reduction on radiographs at the final followup. These preliminary results suggest that this simple technique can achieve stable coracoclavicular reconstruction and facilitate healing of the repaired ligaments or fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.449 · 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

Citations24
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicShoulder and Clavicle InjuriesFrench-language works237,207