Diagnosis of Engaging Bipolar Bone Defects in the Shoulder Using 2-Dimensional Computed Tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anatomic studies have demonstrated that bipolar glenoid and humeral bone loss have a cumulative effect on shoulder instability and that these defects may engage in functional positions depending on their size and location, potentially resulting in failure of stabilization procedures. Determining which lesions pose a risk for engagement remains challenging, with arthroscopic assessments and a 3-dimensional computed tomography (CT)-based glenoid track method being accepted approaches at this time. PURPOSE: The purpose was to investigate the interaction of humeral and glenoid bone defects on shoulder engagement in a cadaveric model. Two alternative approaches to predicting engagement were evaluated: (1) CT of the shoulder in abduction and external rotation (ABER) and (2) measurement of the glenoid lesion width and measurement of a novel parameter, the intact anterior articular angle (IAAA), on conventional 2-dimensional multiplane reformats. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Hill-Sachs and glenoid defects of varying sizes were created in 12 cadaveric upper limbs, producing 45 bipolar defect combinations. The defect characteristics were assessed using CT with the shoulder in a neutral position. ABER CT was performed with the shoulder positioned in 60° of glenohumeral abduction (corresponding to 90° of abduction relative to the trunk) and 90° of external rotation. The IAAA was measured as the cartilage arc angle anterior to the Hill-Sachs defect on the axial slice bisecting the humeral head. The performance of the ABER CT and IAAA approaches to predicting engagement were compared with the glenoid track method. RESULTS: Of the 45 defect combinations, 24 (53%) were classified as engaging using the glenoid track method. ABER CT predicted engagement accurately in 43 of 45 (96%), with a sensitivity and specificity of 92% and 100%, respectively. A logistic model based on the glenoid defect width and IAAA provided a prediction accuracy of 87%, with a sensitivity and specificity of 92% and 81%, respectively. CONCLUSION/CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Bipolar lesions at risk for engagement can be identified accurately using an ABER CT scan or by performing 2-dimensional measurements of the glenoid defect width and IAAA on conventional CT multiplane reformats. This information will be useful for surgical planning in the setting of bipolar bone defects before shoulder stabilization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".