Evaluation of the Clinical Significance of Classification of Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Instability Using Double-Contrast Computed Tomography Arthrography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the clinical significance of traumatic anterior shoulder instability (TASI) classification using double-contrast computed tomography (CT) arthrography. Patient were randomly assigned to two groups: group 1 (n = 62); and group 2 (n = 63). TASI symptom severity in group 1 was assessed using physical signs of shoulder trauma and conventional X-ray, CT and magnetic resonance imaging; these patients received either conservative management (with physical rehabilitation) or standard surgery. Group 2 underwent double-contrast CT arthrography to classify TASI; its findings formed the basis of subsequent management. At 24 months post-therapy, significant improvements in clinical outcomes were observed in group 2: Constant scores were higher and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index scores were lower. At 24 months, recurrence rates were 21.0% (13/62) in group 1 and 7.9% (5/63) in group 2. Findings suggested that TASI classification using double-contrast CT arthrography provided meaningful information thereby improving treatment efficacy.
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 | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".