MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809191337 · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2018.03.019

The Influence of Bone Loss on Glenoid Version Measurement: A Computer‐Modeled Cadaveric Analysis

2018· article· en· W2809191337 on OpenAlexaff
Justin W. Griffin, Michael J. Collins, Timothy Leroux, Brian J. Cole, Bernard R. Bach, Brian Forsythe, Nikhil N. Verma, Anthony A. Romeo, Adam B. Yanke

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCadaveric spasmShouldersMedicineCadaverAnatomyBankart repairNuclear medicineOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To characterize how increasing computed tomography (CT)-quantified glenoid bone loss influences measured version. METHODS: Six embalmed cadaveric shoulders were used for this study. Glenoid bone defects were computer modeled in cadaveric shoulders; CT images were obtained and segmented using OsiriX software, creating 3-dimensional en face glenoids. Glenoid defects were made on CT images of intact glenoids superimposed with a glenoid clock face viewed en face to simulate anterior and posterior bone loss. Bony defects in various positions comprising 3%, 9.5%, and 19.5% were created posteriorly. Best-fit circles were superimposed to represent 10% and 25% defects anteriorly. Version was measured using the Friedman method. RESULTS: The average glenoid version measured 4° of retroversion, 2° after 10% anterior bone loss, and neutral version in the 25% bone loss group. Version was significantly altered when we compared intact glenoids versus 10% and 25% anterior glenoid bone loss (P < .001). Increasing from 10% to 25% bone loss showed a significant difference in measured version (P = .025). Posterior defects from the 6:30 to 8:30 clock-face position averaged 4.6° of retroversion; from the 6:30 to 9:30 clock-face position, 6.2° of retroversion; and from the 6:30 to 10:30 clock-face position, 8.7° of retroversion. When comparing glenoid defects at the 6:30 to 8:30 clock-face position with those involving the 6:30 to 9:30 and 6:30 to 10:30 clock-face positions (P < .001), a 1° correction may be used for every 5% of bone loss to account for version changes seen with bone loss. CONCLUSIONS: In this cadaveric analysis, glenoid version was altered in the setting of increasing posterior and anterior bone loss. A correction factor may be considered to account for this. When comparing glenoid defects at the 6:30 to 8:30 clock-face position with those involving the 6:30 to 9:30 and 6:30 to 10:30 clock-face positions (P < .001), a 1° correction may be used for every 5% of bone loss to account for version changes seen with bone loss. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This cadaveric study shows that glenoid bone loss alters glenoid version, as measured by CT, in a meaningful way. This information is important in managing anterior and posterior shoulder instability, and correction of measured version should be considered in this setting to provide an accurate and comprehensive evaluation.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgerySame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207