Light Microscopic Histology of Achilles Tendon Ruptures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied biopsies from the Achilles tendons of patients undergoing open repair for a subcutaneous rupture of their Achilles tendons (27 men, 11 women; mean age, 45.3 +/- 13.8 years) and specimens of Achilles tendons from persons with no known tendon ailments (43 men, 3 women; mean age, 64.2 +/- 9.7 years). Histologic examination was performed using stained slides that were interpreted using a semiquantitative grading scale assessing fiber structure and arrangement, rounding of the nuclei, regional variations in cellularity, increased vascularity, decreased collagen stainability, hyalinization, and glycosaminoglycan. We gave up to three marks for each of these variables, with 0 being normal and 3 being maximally abnormal. All the histology slides were assessed twice in a blinded manner; the agreement between two readings ranged from 0.56 to 0.87 (kappa statistics). The score of ruptured tendons was significantly greater than the average score of control tendons (20.5 +/- 3.6 versus 6.5 +/- 2.1), and there was significantly higher degeneration in the ruptured tendons. Nonruptured Achilles tendons, even at an advanced age, and ruptured Achilles tendons are clearly part of two distinct populations. Using these staining techniques, light microscopic degeneration is not a feature of tendons from healthy, older persons.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".