MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790978169 · doi:10.1177/1758573218757169

The sub-supraspinatus recess and superior labral motion: an arthroscopic analysis

2018· article· en· W2790978169 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Bouliane, Ryan Paul, Anelise Silveira, R. A. Balyk, Lauren A Beaupré, David M Sheps

Bibliographic record

VenueShoulder & Elbow · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCovenant HealthSturgeon Community HospitalGrey Nuns Community HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlenoid labrumShouldersLabrumRange of motionAnatomySupraspinatus muscleExternal rotationRotator cuffOrthodonticsArthroscopySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueShoulder & ElbowSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207