MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994362699 · doi:10.4081/or.2013.e25

Arthroscopic anatomy of the subdeltoid space

2013· review· en· W1994362699 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. Salata, Shane Nho, Jaskarndip Chahal, Geoffrey Van Thiel, Neil Ghodadra, Tim Dwyer, Anthony A. Romeo

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopedic Reviews · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRotator cuffBursectomySurgeryAcromionArthroscopyDecompressionBicepsImpingement syndromeSubacromial bursa

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the first shoulder arthroscopy performed on a cadaver in 1931, shoulder arthroscopy has grown tremendously in its ability to diagnose and treat pathologic conditions about the shoulder. Despite improvements in arthroscopic techniques and instrumentation, it is only recently that arthroscopists have begun to explore precise anatomical structures within the subdeltoid space. By way of a thorough bursectomy of the subdeltoid region, meticulous hemostasis, and the reciprocal use of posterior and lateral viewing portals, one can identify a myriad of pertinent ligamentous, musculotendinous, osseous, and neurovascular structures. For the purposes of this review, the subdeltoid space has been compartmentalized into lateral, medial, anterior, and posterior regions. Being able to identify pertinent structures in the subdeltoid space will provide shoulder arthroscopists with the requisite foundation in core anatomy that will be required for challenging procedures such as arthroscopic subscapularis mobilization and repair, biceps tenodesis, subcoracoid decompression, suprascapular nerve decompression, quadrangular space decompression and repair of massive rotator cuff tears.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopedic ReviewsSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207