Ultrasound of distal brachialis tendon attachment: normal and abnormal findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate normal and abnormal findings of distal brachialis tendon attachment in cadavers, normal volunteers and patients by means of ultrasound. METHODS: 3 cadaveric specimens, 30 normal volunteers and 125 patients were evaluated by means of ultrasound. Correlative MRI was obtained in volunteers. RESULTS: In all cases, ultrasound demonstrated the distal brachialis tendon shaped by two distinct tendons belonging to the deep head and superficial head of the brachialis muscle. Correlative MRI demonstrated that the brachialis is composed of two distinct tendons in 83% of volunteers (25/30). In the patient group, four avulsions with bony detachment involving the deep head, one delayed onset muscular soreness and three tendinous detachments with no bony avulsion involving one or two tendons were identified. The four patients with bony avulsion were immediately referred to the orthopaedic surgeon for a pre-surgical evaluation. Patients without bony avulsion were not referred to the surgeon. CONCLUSION: Detailed anatomy of the distal tendon is discernible in 100% of cases with ultrasound. There are two distinct tendons, and ultrasound can differentiate isolated lesions. In patients with distal brachialis tendon lesions, ultrasound may modify the clinical management of the patient. Advances in knowledge Detailed anatomy of the distal brachialis tendon is discernible with ultrasound and there are two distinct tendons.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".