MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

2006· review· en· W2328418373 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRotator cuffSurgeryArthroscopyFixation (population genetics)CuffTendonTearsFibrous jointCadaveric spasm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is being performed by an increasing number of orthopaedic surgeons. The principles, techniques, and instrumentation have evolved to the extent that all patterns and sizes of rotator cuff tear, including massive tears, can now be repaired arthroscopically. Achieving a biomechanically stable construct is critical to biologic healing. The ideal repair construct must optimize suture-to-bone fixation, suture-to-tendon fixation, abrasion resistance of suture, suture strength, knot security, loop security, and restoration of the anatomic rotator cuff footprint (the surface area of bone to which the cuff tendons attach). By achieving optimized repair constructs, experienced arthroscopic surgeons are reporting results equal to those of open rotator cuff repair. As surgeons' arthroscopic skill levels increase through attendance at surgical skills courses and greater experience gained in the operating room, there will be an increasing trend toward arthroscopic repair of most rotator cuff pathology.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.327 · 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