Bibliographic record
Abstract
After reading the recently published article by Marquardt et al.,1Marquardt B. Witt K.A. Liem D. Steinbeck J. Potzl W. Arthroscopic Bankart repair in traumatic anterior shoulder instability using a suture anchor technique.Arthroscopy. 2006; 22: 931-936Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (48) Google Scholar I have some questions concerning the inclusion and the outcome measures that were used. The Constant score is used as an outcome measure by the authors. Kirkley et al.2Kirkley A. Griffin S. McLintock H. Ng L. The development and evaluation of a disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for shoulder instability—The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI).Am J Sports Med. 1998; 26: 764-772Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar, 3Kirkley A. Alvarez C. Griffin S. The development and evaluation of a disease-specific quality-of-life questionnaire for disorders of the rotator cuff: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index.Clin J Sport Med. 2003; 13: 84-92Crossref PubMed Scopus (325) Google Scholar stated that this instrument may be useful for discriminating between patients with significant rotator cuff disease or osteoarthritis but it is not useful for patients with instability. In fact, in one study all of the patients with instability of the shoulder scored nearly perfectly (95 to 100) despite having problems of sufficient magnitude to request surgical intervention.4Conboy V.B. Morris R.W. Kiss J. Carr A.J. An evaluation of the Constant-Morley shoulder assessment.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996; 78: 229-232PubMed Google Scholar Reading this, I cannot understand by which criteria a group of athletic young men, with a mean age of 25 years, have an average Constant score at inclusion of 55.3 points! In a patient with recurrent anterior traumatic instability, the score will be normal (as previously mentioned), unless the shoulder is permanently dislocated. A Constant score of 55 is associated with important strength loss, continuous pain, and severely restricted range of motion, which is not the case in recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation. I would like the authors to explain their rationale for using the score and to explain how they calculated the score. Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Instability Using a Suture Anchor TechniqueArthroscopyVol. 22Issue 9PreviewPurpose: The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the surgical outcome of arthroscopic Bankart repair via suture anchors in patients with recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Methods: We included 54 consecutive patients without an osseous Bankart lesion of greater than 25% of the glenoid circumference with a mean age of 25.3 years (range, 16 to 58 years) undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair via suture anchors for traumatic anterior shoulder instability. Full-Text PDF Author’s ReplyArthroscopyVol. 23Issue 6PreviewWe thank Dr. Diercks for his valuable comments regarding our article.1 He may certainly be correct in his concerns about the use of the Constant score as a measurement tool for patients with shoulder instability in our study. The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index indeed appears to be a sensitive measurement tool in these patients, because it focuses on the patient’s own perception of changes in health status.2 However, its use in the current literature is not very widespread. The Constant score assesses pain, function, range of motion, and strength and thus combines subjective and objective parameters. Full-Text PDF
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.024 |
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".