MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120567451 · doi:10.1302/0301-620x.90b2.20040

Long-term outcome of a transglenoid suture technique for anterior shoulder instability in young adults

2008· article· en· W2120567451 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tim Söderlund, Ville M. Mattila, Tuomo Visuri, Harri Pihlajamäki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineShouldersSurgeryFibrous jointDislocationQuality of life (healthcare)Nursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We reviewed the outcome of arthroscopic stabilisation of anterior glenohumeral instability in young adults using the transglenoid suture technique. A questionnaire was sent to 455 consecutive patients who had undergone this procedure between 1992 and 2000. Of these, 312 patients (68.5%) with 313 affected shoulders and a mean age of 20 years (18 to 28) responded. Outcome was determined by the number of re-dislocations or, in patients who had not re-dislocated, by the disease-specific quality of life as measured by the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index. During a mean follow-up of 6.4 years (1 to 14), 177 patients (56%) sustained a re-dislocation, including 70 who required a further operation. In 136 patients (44%) who reported neither re-dislocation nor re-operation, the index scores were good (median 90.4%; 28.9% to 100%). No significant peri- or pre-operative predictors of re-dislocation or re-operation were found. We found a high rate of re-dislocation after transglenoid suture repair in young, physically active patients.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British VolumeSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207