Evaluation of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair results in patients with anterior greater tubercle cysts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical results of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in patients with anterior greater tubercle cyst in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: The cyst-present group comprised 38 patients with anterior greater tubercle cyst in MRI, and age- and sex-matched 30 patients without cyst in humeral head were included in the control group. The cystic group was divided into two groups, smaller than 5 mm (21 patients) and larger than 5 mm (17 patients), according to the cyst size. A total of three groups were created. In the evaluation of clinical outcomes, modified University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) and the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) were used. The visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess pain. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare VAS, UCLA, and WORC scores among the groups. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in the clinical results of VAS, UCLA, and WORC among the cystic and noncystic groups in the anterior greater tubercle ( p < 0.05). There was also a statistically significant difference in the clinical results of UCLA, WORC, and VAS scores according to the cyst sizes in the anterior greater tubercle cyst group ( p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Anterior greater tubercle cysts have negative effects on rotator cuff repair results. If the anterior greater tubercle cyst size is greater than 5 mm, the negative effects of rotator cuff repair results are more pronounced. An understanding of anterior greater tubercle cysts has a critical importance for rotator cuff surgery planning.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".