MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593333549 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.rvw.16.00054

Tears of the Subscapularis Tendon

2017· review· en· W2593333549 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

VenueJBJS Reviews · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTearsMedicineSurgeryTendonArthroscopyMagnetic resonance imagingPhysical examinationRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

➢ With the advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and arthroscopy, the diagnosis and treatment of subscapularis tendon tears have been increasingly reported. ➢ The patient history and physical examination findings are important to heighten the suspicion of a subscapularis tendon tear and to distinguish acute traumatic tears from degenerative tears. ➢ While nonoperative treatment is the primary option for subscapularis tendon tears, surgery may be considered for acute traumatic tears and tears for which nonoperative treatment has failed. ➢ Both open and arthroscopic subscapularis tendon repairs have provided good clinical outcomes. ➢ For arthroscopic repair, maximizing visualization is paramount to recognizing the subscapularis tendon tear and allowing anatomical repair.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.321
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.176 · 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