Distal Anatomical Relationship of the Flexor Hallucis Longus and Flexor Digitorum Longus Tendons
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
BACKGROUND: The distal attachment of the flexor hallucis longus (FHL) tendon with the flexor digitorum longus (FDL) tendon varies antomically. The presence of a strong link between the two tendons can preserve distal function if one of the tendons is used for transfer. METHODS: Twenty-four cadaver legs were dissected, and the distal relationship of the FHL tendon with the FDL tendon was analyzed. The width of the tendons and their attachments were measured to the closest 0.5 mm. RESULTS: Three different configurations were found. In type 1, a tendinous slip branched from the FHL to the FDL (10 of 24 feet). In type 2, a slip branched from the FHL to the FDL and another from the FDL to FHL (10 of 24). In type 3, no attachment was present (four of 24). In four cadavers the attachment was different in the right and left feet. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The absence of a cross connection between the two tendons in the foot may be more frequent than previously reported. Three configurations of the anatomical relationship of the distal FDL to FHL tendons were found in this study with a small sample size. Based on these findings, to preserve the distal function of the FDL after transfer of the proximal FDL tendon, routine tenodesis should be done or a wider exposure and tenodesis in type 3 variations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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