Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is no simple method available to identify patients who will develop recurrent instability after an arthroscopic Bankart procedure and who would be better served by an open operation. We carried out a prospective case-control study of 131 consecutive unselected patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability who underwent this procedure using suture anchors. At follow-up after a mean of 31.2 months (24 to 52) 19 (14.5%) had recurrent instability. The following risk factors were identified: patient age under 20 years at the time of surgery; involvement in competitive or contact sports or those involving forced overhead activity; shoulder hyperlaxity; a Hill-Sachs lesion present on an anteroposterior radiograph of the shoulder in external rotation and/or loss of the sclerotic inferior glenoid contour. These factors were integrated in a 10-point pre-operative instability severity index score and tested retrospectively on the same population. Patients with a score over 6 points had an unacceptable recurrence risk of 70% (p < 0.001). On this basis we believe that an arthroscopic Bankart repair is contraindicated in these patients, to whom we now suggest a Bristow-Latarjet procedure instead.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it