Is the Walch B3 glenoid significantly worse than the B2?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The Walch B3 glenoid is theorized to be a progression of the B2 biconcave pattern. The present study aimed to compare glenoid indices between B2 and B3 patterns. We hypothesized that the B3 pattern would have significantly worse retroversion, inclination and medialization. Methods Computed tomography scans of 50 patients with B2 erosions [mean (SD) age 68 (9) years; 25 male] and 50 patients with B3 erosions [mean (SD) age 72 (8) years; 22 males] were converted into three-dimensional reconstructions. Retroversion, inclination, medialization and humeral head subluxation were compared. Results The data demonstrated no statistically significant differences [mean (SD)] between groups when assessing retroversion: B2 = 21 (8)°, B3 = 24 (7)° ( p = 0.602); glenoid inclination: B2 = 9 (6)°, B3 = 8 (6)° ( p = 0.967); or medialization: B2 = 12 (4) mm, B3 = 14 (4) mm ( p = 0.384). In the B2 group, the mean (SD) humeral head subluxation was 80% (10%) according to the scapular plane and 55% (9%) according to the glenoid plane, which was not statistically different from the B3 group with a mean (SD) humeral head subluxation of 81% (7%) according to the scapular plane ( p = 0.680) and 54% (7%) according to the glenoid plane ( p = 0.292). Conclusions These results demonstrated no significant differences between the B2 and B3 erosion patterns, with respect to the glenoid indicies measured. The aetiology of the B3 glenoid cannot be completely explained by progression of wear in a B2 glenoid.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".