Intramuscular fat accumulation and muscle atrophy in the absence of muscle retraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although many clinical and experimental investigations have shed light on muscle atrophy and intramuscular accumulation of fat after rotator cuff disruption, none have reported on their onset in the absence of muscle retraction. METHODS: In 30 rabbits, we detached one supraspinatus (SSP) tendon and repaired it immediately, thus preventing muscle retraction. The animals were killed in groups of 10 at one, two and six weeks. Both shoulders of 15 non-operated rabbits served as controls. We measured the weight and volume of SSP muscles and quantified the cross-sectional area of intramuscular fat (i-fat) histologically. RESULTS: There was significant loss of muscle weight and volume after one week (p = 0.004 and 0.003, respectively), and two weeks (both p < 0.001) in the experimental group; which recovered to control values after six weeks. I-fat accumulated one week after immediate repair, greater than in the control group and statistically significant at the mid-part of the muscle (mean 2.7% vs 1.5%, p = 0.008). I-fat continued to accumulate up to six weeks at all sites of the SSP muscle (all 3, p < 0.001). More fat accumulated closer to the musculotendinous junction than at the mid-part after two and six weeks (p = 0.012 and 0.019, respectively). CONCLUSION: Muscle atrophy and i-fat accumulation occur early after SSP tendon tear and immediate repair. While early repair benefitted muscle recovery, it did not prevent fat accumulation. SSP muscle retraction was not essential to the muscle alterations. The divergent evolution of muscle and fat points to different pathophysiologies. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:117-22.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".