MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2259704023 · doi:10.1302/0301-620x.95b4.30839

Latissimus dorsi tendon transfer for irreparable tears of the rotator cuff

2013· article· en· W2259704023 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Henry, Tim Dwyer, Michael D. McKee, Emil H. Schemitsch

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Bone & Joint Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnatomyTendonMedicineRotator cuffTendon transferCadaverBrachial arteryAxillary arteryHumerusNeurovascular bundleRadial nerveBrachial plexusRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Latissimus dorsi tendon transfer (LDTT) is technically challenging. In order to clarify the local structural anatomy, we undertook a morphometric study using six complete cadavers (12 shoulders). Measurements were made from the tendon to the nearby neurovascular structures with the arm in two positions: flexed and internally rotated, and adducted in neutral rotation. The tendon was then transferred and measurements were taken from the edge of the tendon to a reference point on the humeral head in order to assess the effect of a novel two-stage release on the excursion of the tendon. With the shoulder flexed and internally rotated, the mean distances between the superior tendon edge and the radial nerve, brachial artery, axillary nerve and posterior circumflex artery were 30 mm (26 to 34), 28 mm (17 to 39), 21 mm (12 to 28) and 15 mm (10 to 21), respectively. The mean distance between the inferior tendon edge and the radial nerve, brachial artery and profunda brachii artery was 18 mm (8 to 27), 22 mm (15 to 32) and 14 mm (7 to 21), respectively. Moving the arm to a neutral position reduced these distances. A mean of 15 mm (8 to 21) was gained from a standard soft-tissue release, and 32 mm (20 to 45) from an extensile release. These figures help to define further the structural anatomy of this region and the potential for transfer of the latissimus dorsi tendon.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.649

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Bone & Joint JournalSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207