Utility of the Pectoralis Major Index in the Diagnosis of Structurally Significant Pectoralis Major Tears
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of pectoralis major tears early in the acute phase is important for optimizing surgical repair and outcomes. However, physical examination of pectoralis major injuries can be misleading, often resulting in a potentially detrimental delay in surgical treatment. PURPOSE: To establish and validate a quantifiable clinical diagnostic test for structurally significant pectoralis major tears. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: A total of 50 healthy male participants (mean age, 43.3 ± 11.9 years) with normal uninjured pectoralis major anatomy were examined. Digital photographs of all participants were taken in the "military press" starting position (90° of shoulder abduction, 90° of shoulder external rotation). The length between the ipsilateral nipple and the apex of the pectoralis major muscle curvature along the anterior axillary fold, known as the pectoralis major distance, was measured bilaterally. Two orthopaedic surgeons measured all photographs on 2 separate occasions. The pectoralis major index (PMI) was calculated as a ratio of pectoralis major distance values to establish normal values. The PMI was also calculated in a cohort of 19 male patients (mean age, 33.8 ± 6.8 years) with a pectoralis major rupture to assess the diagnostic utility of this novel quantifiable physical examination technique. RESULTS: Mean (± standard deviation) PMI for the uninjured group was 1.0 ± 0.07. A diagnostic threshold of a PMI <0.9 resulted in a sensitivity of 79%, specificity of 98%, and overall accuracy of 93% in identifying structurally significant pectoralis major ruptures. There was no correlation between PMI and age or activity level, including participation in sports and/or weight training. The PMI technique demonstrated good to excellent intrarater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.82, 0.74) and interrater reliability (ICC = 0.63, 0.76). CONCLUSION: The PMI technique is a simple, quantifiable, and accurate clinical diagnostic test for structurally significant pectoralis major tears. Routine application of the PMI technique by clinicians may improve accurate identification of structurally significant rupture and expedite referral to a surgical specialist for optimal treatment and outcome.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".