Retrospective Review of Pectoralis Major Ruptures in Rodeo Steer Wrestlers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Pectoralis major tendon ruptures have been reported in the literature as occupational injuries, accidental injuries, and sporting activities. Few cases have been reported with respect to rodeo activities. Purpose. To describe a series of PM tendon ruptures in professional steer wrestlers. Study Design. Case series, level of evidence, 4. Methods. A retrospective analysis of PM ruptures in a steer wrestling cohort was performed. Injury data between 1992 and 2008 were reviewed using medical records from the University of Calgary Sport Medicine Center. Results. Nine cases of pectoralis major ruptures in professional steer wrestlers were identified. Injuries occurred during the throwing phase of the steer or while breaking a fall. All athletes reported unexpected or abnormal behavior of the steer that contributed to the mechanism of injury. Seven cases were surgically repaired, while two cases opted for nonsurgical intervention. Eight cases reported successful return to competition following the injury. Conclusion. Steer wrestlers represent a unique cohort of PM rupture case studies. Steer wrestling is a demanding sport that involves throwing maneuvers that may predispose the muscle to rupture. All cases demonstrated good functional outcomes regardless of surgical or non-surgical treatment.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".