The Biceps Crease Interval for Diagnosing Complete Distal Biceps Tendon Ruptures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Complete distal biceps tendon ruptures require prompt surgical management for optimal functional and aesthetic outcome. The need exists for a valid and reliable diagnostic tool to expedite surgical referral. We hypothesized complete distal biceps tendon ruptures result in an objectively measurable anatomic landmark (the distance between the antecubital crease of the elbow and the cusp of distal descent of the biceps muscle, or the biceps crease interval), as a result of proximal retraction of the musculotendinous complex. We established normal biceps crease interval values and biceps crease ratios between dominant and nondominant arms in 80 men with no history of biceps injury (average age, 43 years). The mean (+/- standard deviation) biceps crease interval for dominant and nondominant arms was 4.8 +/- 0.6 cm. The mean biceps crease ratio was 1.0 +/- 0.1. We measured the biceps crease interval and biceps crease ratio on 29 consecutive patients presenting with a possible complete distal biceps tendon rupture. Using a diagnostic threshold of a biceps crease interval greater than 6.0 cm or biceps crease ratio greater than 1.2, the biceps crease interval test had a sensitivity of 96% and a diagnostic accuracy of 93% for identifying complete distal biceps tendon ruptures, making it a valid and reliable tool for clinicians to identify cases requiring urgent surgical referral. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
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".