Anatomic Single‐Incision Repair of Distal Biceps Tendon Ruptures Using Flexible Reamers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distal biceps tendon ruptures are treated operatively in active healthy individuals. Treatment consists of either single- or double-incision techniques, each with its own set of advantages and complications. The double incision was traditionally preferred for a more anatomic reattachment of the distal biceps tendon, but there has been renewed interest in the single-incision anterior approach given its lower risk for heterotopic ossification. However, current single-incision techniques cannot achieve anatomic reconstruction of the distal biceps because of a restricted operational angle with standard rigid instruments. The purpose of this study was to introduce a single-incision technique using flexible instrumentation, flexible guide pins, and flexible reamers that allows for an insertion point that better approximates the anatomic footprint of the distal biceps on the tuberosity. This offers the theoretical advantage of restoring forearm supination mechanics, while still maintaining the benefits of a single limited anterior exposure.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".