Muscle Forces and Pronation Stabilize the Lateral Ligament Deficient Elbow
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of muscle activity and forearm position on the stability of the lateral collateral ligament deficient elbow was investigated in vitro, using a custom testing apparatus to simulate active and passive elbow flexion. Rotation of the ulna relative to the humerus was measured before and after sectioning of the joint capsule, and the radial and lateral ulnar collateral ligaments from the lateral epicondyle. Gross instability was present after lateral collateral ligament transection during passive elbow flexion with the arm in the varus orientation. In the vertical orientation during passive elbow flexion, stability of the lateral collateral ligament deficient elbow was similar to the intact elbow with the forearm held in pronation, but not similar to the intact elbow when maintained in supination. This instability with the forearm supinated was reduced significantly when simulated active flexion was done. The stabilizing effect of muscle activity suggests physical therapy of the lateral collateral ligament deficient elbow should focus on active rather than passive mobilization, while avoiding shoulder abduction to minimize varus elbow stress. Passive mobilization should be done with the forearm maintained in pronation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it