The Macroscopic Delineation of the Edge of the Glenoid Labrum: An Anatomic Evaluation of an Open and Arthroscopic Visual Reference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our purpose was to evaluate the distance from the bony edge of the glenoid to the visible (or macroscopic) demarcation at the junction of the labrum and the articular cartilage. METHODS: Ten fresh-frozen cadaveric upper extremity specimens were dissected. The shoulder was disarticulated and periarticular structures were removed, leaving the glenoid with the labrum attached. The macroscopic edge of the glenoid was then marked with a drill at the 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, 7, 8-, and 9-o'clock positions, as defined by a clock face (right) and a reverse clock face (left). Soft tissue and cartilage were then removed, and the distance from the outer edge of the drill hole to the bony rim was measured. RESULTS: The mean distance from the bony edge in hourly intervals starting at the 3-o'clock position anteriorly and extending to the 9-o'clock position posteriorly was 4.03 mm (range, 2.1 to 5.21 mm; SD, 0.96 mm), 4.2 mm (range, 2.1 to 5.31 mm; SD, 0.97 mm), 4.51 mm (range, 3.1 to 5.2 mm; SD, 0.91 mm), 5.14 mm (range, 3.1 to 7 mm; SD, 1.38 mm), 3.24 mm (range, 1.1 to 5.2 mm; SD, 1.4 mm), 3.78 mm (range, 1 to 6 mm; SD, 1.6 mm), and 4.28 mm (range, 2.1 to 7.3 mm; SD, 1.51 mm), respectively. A trend was noted for significant differences between locations, but this did not reach statistical significance (analysis of variance, P = .086). CONCLUSIONS: The macroscopic edge of the labrum on the glenoid face does not correspond to the bony edge of the glenoid. The labrum overlaps onto the bony surface of the glenoid from a minimum of 1.6 mm to a maximum of 7.3 mm. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our findings provide anatomic data that enhances the arthroscopist's ability to anatomically reconstruct the glenoid labrum.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".