MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098498529 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.h.00417

Correlation of Radiographic Muscle Cross-Sectional Area with Glenohumeral Deformity in Children with Brachial Plexus Birth Palsy

2009· article· en· W2098498529 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter M. Waters, James T. Monica, Brandon E. Earp, David Zurakowski, Donald S. Bae

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNerve Injury and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrachial plexusShouldersCross-sectional studyDeformityMagnetic resonance imagingPalsyBicepsRadiographyRotator cuffAnatomySurgeryRadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Muscle imbalance about the shoulder in children with persistent brachial plexus birth palsy is thought to contribute to glenohumeral joint deformity. We quantified cross-sectional areas of the internal and external rotator muscles in the shoulder by magnetic resonance imaging in patients with chronic brachial plexopathy and the correlation between these muscle cross-sectional area ratios and glenohumeral deformity. The purposes of this investigation were to evaluate differences in the ratios between affected and unaffected shoulders in the same individual and to assess whether an increased internal to external rotator muscle cross-sectional area correlated with greater glenohumeral deformity. METHODS: This cohort study consisted of magnetic resonance imaging of seventy-four patients with chronic neuropathic changes about the shoulder from brachial plexus birth palsy. There were at least nine patients with scans available for each of the five classified subtypes of glenohumeral deformity: type I (fifteen patients), type II (seventeen), type III (seventeen), type IV (sixteen), and type V (nine). Cross-sectional areas of the pectoralis major, teres minor-infraspinatus (external rotators), and subscapularis muscles were measured. The supraspinatus muscle cross-sectional area could not be reliably measured. The ratio of subscapularis to external rotators, the ratio of pectoralis major to external rotators, and the compound ratio of subscapularis and pectoralis major to external rotators were compared with the severity of the glenohumeral deformity. Passive range of motion, Mallet and Toronto clinical scores, and Narakas type were also compared with the severity of the glenohumeral deformity and the muscle cross-sectional area measurements. RESULTS: Muscle cross-sectional area ratios were significantly correlated with glenohumeral deformity type. The mean ratio of pectoralis major to external rotators for affected shoulders over all deformity types compared with that for unaffected shoulders was significantly increased by 30% (p < 0.001); the mean ratio for subscapularis and pectoralis major to external rotators, by 19% (p = 0.015), and the mean ratio for subscapularis to external rotators, by 10% (p = 0.008). There was a significant increase in the ratio of pectoralis major to external rotators in affected shoulders within each type of deformity. Analysis of variance indicated higher ratios of pectoralis major to external rotator muscle cross-sectional areas in more severe deformity types (p < 0.001). There were significant differences in external rotation measurements with the shoulder at 90 degrees of abduction only among glenohumeral deformity types I, II, and III (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The degree of muscle imbalance between internal and external rotators about the shoulder is measurable by magnetic resonance imaging in children with persistent brachial plexopathy, and the imbalance correlates with the degree of glenohumeral deformity. Our results may provide useful information to guide the timing and the choice of operative intervention in these children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations70
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicNerve Injury and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207