MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033255258 · doi:10.1002/ca.20784

Three‐dimensional study of pectoralis major muscle and tendon architecture

2009· article· en· W2033255258 on OpenAlexaff
Lillia Y. Fung, Brian J. F. Wong, Kajeandra Ravichandiran, Anne Agur, Tim Rindlisbacher, Amr Elmaraghy

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Anatomy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder and Clavicle Injuries
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCadaveric spasmMedicineAnatomyTendonMuscle bellyPectoralis major muscleMuscle architectureCadaverPectoralis Muscle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A thorough understanding of the normal structural anatomy of the pectoralis major (PM) is of paramount importance in the planning of PM tendon transfers or repairs following traumatic PM tears. However, there is little consensus regarding the complex musculotendinous architecture of the PM in the anatomic or surgical literature. The purpose of this study is to model and quantify the three-dimensional architecture of the pectoralis muscle and tendon. Eleven formalin embalmed cadaveric specimens were examined: five (2M/3F) were serially dissected, digitized, and modeled in 3D using Autodesk Maya; six (4M/2F) were dissected and photographed. The PM tendon consisted of longer anterior and shorter posterior layers that were continuous inferiorly. The muscle belly consisted of an architecturally uniform clavicular head (CH) and a segmented sternal head (SH) with 6-7 segments. The most inferior SH segment in all specimens was found to fold anteriorly forming a trough that cradled the inferior aspect of the adjacent superior segment. No twisting of either the PM muscle or tendon was noted. Within the CH, the fiber bundle lengths (FBL) were found to increase from superior to inferior, whereas the mean FBLs of SH were greatest in segments 3-5 found centrally. The mean lateral pennation angle was greater in the CH (29.4 +/- 6.9 degrees ) than in the SH (20.6 +/- 2.7 degrees ). The application of these findings could form the basis of future studies to optimize surgical planning and functional recovery of repair/reconstruction procedures.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.396 · 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

Citations122
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical AnatomySame topicShoulder and Clavicle InjuriesFrench-language works237,207