CT Scan Method Accurately Assesses Humeral Head Retroversion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humeral head retroversion is not well described with the literature controversial regarding accuracy of measurement methods and ranges of normal values. We therefore determined normal humeral head retroversion and assessed the measurement methods. We measured retroversion in 65 cadaveric humeri, including 52 paired specimens, using four methods: radiographic, computed tomography (CT) scan, computer-assisted, and direct methods. We also assessed the distance between the humeral head central axis and the bicipital groove. CT scan methods accurately measure humeral head retroversion, while radiographic methods do not. The retroversion with respect to the transepicondylar axis was 17.9 degrees and 21.5 degrees with respect to the trochlear tangent axis. The difference between the right and left humeri was 8.9 degrees. The distance between the central axis of the humeral head and the bicipital groove was 7.0 mm and was consistent between right and left humeri. Humeral head retroversion may be most accurately obtained using the patient's own anatomic landmarks or, if not, identifiable retroversion as measured by those landmarks on contralateral side or the bicipital groove.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".