Osseous Anatomy of the Scapula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detailed anatomy and morphometry of the scapula were obtained to provide information for surgical procedures such as hardware fixation, drill hole placement, arthroscopic portal placement, and prosthetic positioning. Twenty-six measurements were made in 15 pairs of scapulas from cadavers. The average length of the scapulas from the superior to the inferior angle was 155 +/- 16 mm (mean +/- standard deviation). The thickness of the medial border 1 cm from the edge was 4 +/- 1 mm. The superior border was sharp and thin, and the suprascapular notch was present as a foramen in two scapulas. The distance from the base of the suprascapular notch to the superior rim of the glenoid was 32 +/- 3 mm. The length of the spine from the medial edge of the scapula to the lateral edge of the acromion was 134 +/- 12 mm. The anteroposterior width of the spine at 1 and 4 cm from the medial edge was 7 +/- 1 and 18 +/- 3 mm, respectively; the width at the lateral edge (spinoglenoid notch) was 46 +/- 6 mm. The acromion measured 48 +/- 5 mm x 22 +/- 4 mm and was 9 +/- 1 mm thick. The acromial shape was flat in 23%, curved in 63%, and hooked in 14% of scapulas. The distance from the glenoid to the acromion was 16 +/- 2 mm. The glenoid dimensions were 29 +/- 3 mm (anteroposterior) x 36 +/- 4 mm (superoinferior) and faced posterior by 8 +/- 4 degrees. Anteroposterior thickness of the head of the scapula 1 cm from the surface was 22 +/- 4 mm. The thickness of the coracoid was 11 +/- 1 mm. The average length of the coracoacromial ligament was 27 +/- 5 mm. Scapulas from male cadavers were significantly larger than scapulas from female cadavers in 19 measurements.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".