Does presence of anterior greater tuberosity cysts change the function in patients with chronic rotator cuff tear?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare rotator cuff muscle atrophy with fatty degeneration, tear size, range of motion, shoulder muscle strength, pain and upper extremity function in patients with chronic rotator cuff tear, and with or without anterior greater tuberosity cyst. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 101 patients (32 males, 69 females; mean age 51 ± 12.9 years; range 17 to 76 years) were evaluated in this study. Fifty-eight patients were excluded due to traumatic or acute rotator cuff tears and neck pain. Forty-three patients of chronic rotator cuff tear were divided into two groups as patients with (n=15) and without (n=28) an anterior greater tuberosity cyst. Patients were evaluated for range of motion, shoulder muscle strength, pain and upper extremity function, and radiologically. Statistical differences were investigated between two groups. RESULTS: The number of patients with tears larger than 1 cm and the number of patients who had muscle atrophy were higher in the group of patients with a cyst. Also, upper extremity function was reduced in the group of patients with a cyst (Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index, p=0.03, Nine-Hole Peg Test, p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrated that decreased function, larger cuff tears and muscle atrophy can be observed patients with anterior greater tuberosity cysts. Anterior greater tuberosity cysts can be detected by plain X-rays. The presence of these cysts should warn the physician regarding the possibility of decreased shoulder function, muscle atrophy and larger cuff tear before ordering a magnetic resonance imaging.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".