The sub-supraspinatus recess and superior labral motion: an arthroscopic analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimal information exists regarding the sub-supraspinatus recess superior to the labrum and inferior to the supraspinatus. Furthermore, movement of the superior labrum during glenohumeral range of motion has not previously been defined. The objectives of this arthroscopic study were to describe the (i) sub-supraspinatus recess dimensions and (ii) superior labral motion. METHODS: Forty-four patients were enrolled and underwent standardized arthroscopic assessment. Analysis consisted of static measurement of the sub-supraspinatus recess depth, as well as the amount of labral motion during passive shoulder motion. Labral movement was categorized relative to the glenoid rim (lateral to the rim, to the rim, or medial to the rim). RESULTS: < 0.001) with 28 (80%) shoulders moving medial to the rim. CONCLUSIONS: The sub-supraspinatus recess is consistently present with an average depth of 5 mm to 10 mm. Superior labral motion is present in most patients and is most pronounced in external rotation in abduction. This finding likely has clinical implications for superior labral repair surgery, especially for overhead athletes and laborers who require external rotation in an abducted position for a successful outcome.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".