Projection of the Glenoid Center Point Within the Glenoid Vault
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correct identification of the center point of the glenoid surface guides glenoid component placement. It is unknown whether the center point on the glenoid surface corresponds to the center of the glenoid vault at the medial extent of the glenoid prosthesis. We reviewed 20 consecutive computed tomography scans obtained preoperatively in patients with primary osteoarthritis. A glenoid center point was chosen on the glenoid surface and then projected back into the glenoid vault along the scapular axis and perpendicular to glenoid inclination. The difference from the projection of the glenoid surface center point to the center point at a 1.5-cm depth into the glenoid vault was then measured. The mean deviation of the glenoid center point at a depth of 1.5 cm from the center point at the glenoid articular surface was 1.7 mm anterior and 3.9 mm inferior. The most common deviation of the center point of the glenoid vault at the projected medial limit of the glenoid prosthesis was slightly anterior and inferior to the center point on the glenoid surface. Identifying the center of the glenoid surface coupled with alignment of the glenoid prosthesis in neutral version and anatomic inclination provides a reliable means to guide placement of glenoid components.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".