MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053209883 · doi:10.1016/s0736-0266(03)00116-5

Glenoid version and rotator cuff tears

2003· article· en· W2053209883 on OpenAlex
Patrice Tétreault, Andreas Krueger, David Zurakowski, Christian Gerber

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Research® · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHôpital Notre-Dame
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotator cuffShouldersTearsMedicineCuffFossaExternal rotationRotator cuff injurySurgeryAnatomyOrthodontics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between rotator cuff (RC) tear and the orientation of the glenoid. Ninety-six shoulders (94 patients) that underwent open RC repair were grouped according to the type of tear. We measured on MRI the acromio-glenoid angle (AG) and the supraspinatus fossa glenoid angle on the anterior-posterior (SGAP) and axial (SGAX) views. RC patients had a smaller AG angle (76+/-7 degrees vs. 86+/-10 degrees ) and a larger SGAP angle (112+/-6 degrees vs. 102+/-7 degrees ) compared to controls (p<0.001). We also found a highly significant difference (p<0.001) in glenoid version measured by SGAX between anterior cuff tears (-5+/-4 degrees ) and posterior cuff tears (3+/-3 degrees ). Furthermore, we identified an association between RC tear and the orientation of the glenoid relative to the axis of the supraspinatus fossa. Greater retroversion is predictive of an anterior cuff injury and greater anteversion is predictive of a posterior cuff injury.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.329 · 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