Recurrent Symptoms after Shoulder Instability Repair: Direct MR Arthrographic Assessment—Correlation with Second-Look Surgical Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To retrospectively determine the accuracy of direct magnetic resonance (MR) arthrography of the shoulder in patients with recurrent or residual signs and/or symptoms of instability after prior instability repair, with surgical findings as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After institutional ethics review board approval was obtained and informed consent was waived, 40 patients (31 men, eight women; mean age, 28 years) with recurrent instability after previous instability repair who underwent direct shoulder MR arthrography before repeat surgery were studied. Two musculoskeletal radiologists reviewed direct MR arthrographic studies by using consensus agreement in a blinded fashion. MR assessment included evaluation of the labrum (overall, superior, anterior and anteroinferior, posterior and posteroinferior), rotator cuff, biceps tendon, articular cartilage, and presence or absence of a Hill-Sachs lesion. Mean interval between MR arthrography and repeat surgery was 6.2 months (range, 6 days to 36 months). Surgical reports were compared with MR arthrographic results, and accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of direct MR arthrography were determined. RESULTS: Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity, respectively, of direct MR arthrography in diagnosis of overall labral tears (n = 26) were 91.9%, 96.2%, and 81.8%; those of superior labral tears (n = 16) were 89.2%, 93.8%, and 85.7%; and those of anteroinferior tears (n = 17) were 91.9%, 100%, and 85%. Overall accuracy for detecting rotator cuff injury (n = 17) was 87.2% (sensitivity, 94.1%; specificity, 81.8%); accuracy for biceps injury (n = 7) was 95.7% (sensitivity, 85.7%; specificity, 100%); accuracy for glenoid and/or humeral articular cartilage abnormality (n = 15) was 76.2% (sensitivity, 73.3%; specificity, 83.3%); and accuracy for Hill-Sachs lesion (n = 14) was 93.3%. CONCLUSION: Direct MR arthrography is accurate (91.9%) for assessing labral pathologic conditions and other internal derangements of the shoulder in patients with recurrent or residual signs and/or symptoms after prior shoulder instability repair.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".