Early reattachment does not reverse atrophy and fat accumulation of the supraspinatus—an experimental study in rabbits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Reattachment of the supraspinatus (SSP) tendon after spontaneous rupture leads to improved shoulder function. Whether this improvement of function is due to a reversal of muscle atrophy and fat accumulation known to occur after SSP rupture is still debated. Our previous study of late reattachment of SSP (12 weeks) failed to confirm a reversal of muscle atrophy and of fat accumulation. PURPOSE: To find out whether earlier reattachment (6 weeks) reverses atrophy and fat accumulation of the SSP. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Reattachment group: in seven rabbits unilateral supraspinatus detachment, reattachment after 6 weeks and killing 6 weeks later. Detachment group: in seven rabbits unilateral supraspinatus detachment and killing 12 weeks later. The contralateral shoulders served as controls (n=14). Determination of the supraspinatus constituents: muscle, extra- and intramuscular fat in volume and cross-sectional area. RESULTS: Muscle tissue in the reattachment group (8.6 ml+/-1s.d.=0.6) and in the detachment group (8.9 ml+/-0.9) were less than in control supraspinati (10.2 ml+/-0.9, both p<0.05). Extra- and intramuscular fat in the reattachment group (8.7%+/-3.2) was greater than in both, the detachment group (4.6%+/-3.5), and control supraspinati (2.8%+/-1.7, both p<0.05). CONCLUSION: In the rabbit, reattachment of the SSP at 6 weeks did neither reverse muscle atrophy nor fat accumulation during the ensuing 6 weeks. However, earlier reattachment (6 weeks) when compared with later reattachment (12 weeks) prevented an increase in fat accumulation. On the other hand, the delay before reattaching the tendon did not lead to an increase in muscle atrophy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".