MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772573711 · doi:10.1177/1758573217743943

Capsular needle biopsy as a pre-operative diagnostic test for peri-prosthetic shoulder infection

2017· article· en· W2772573711 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Lapner, Kelly Hynes, Adnan Sheikh

Bibliographic record

VenueShoulder & Elbow · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiopsyArthroplastySurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Establishing the diagnosis of peri-prosthetic shoulder infection prior to revision shoulder arthroplasty can be difficult. The objectives of the present study were (i) to describe the technique of fluoroscopic capsular needle biopsy for the diagnosis of peri-prosthetic shoulder infection and (ii) to determine the feasibility and preliminary accuracy of the test in a pilot sample of patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: Eighteen patients, comprising eight females and nine males with a mean age of 61 years (range 37 years to 81 years) underwent capsular needle biopsy during the work-up of suspected chronic arthroplasty-related glenohumeral infection. Intra-operative tissue samples were taken from a minimum of three regions of the joint capsule during revision surgery. Standard serum indices were obtained. RESULTS: Of 17 patients with possible infection, five had confirmed culture positive infections based on intra-operative biopsies. Of these five patients, four (80%) had positive cultures from fluoroscopic capsular needle biopsy, with matching cultures. There were no complications. No culture-positive patients had elevated serum indices for infection. CONCLUSIONS: Level II: diagnostic test.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueShoulder & ElbowSame topicOrthopedic Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207