MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095724689 · doi:10.5435/jaaos-d-20-00450

Case Studies AAOS Clinical Practice Guideline: Management of Rotator Cuff Injuries

2020· article· en· W3095724689 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen C. Weber, Jaskarndip Chahal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRotator cuffGuidelinePhysical therapyRotator cuff injuryClinical PracticePresentation (obstetrics)DiseasePhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shoulder disease is a major cause of musculoskeletal disability in the United States. Chronic shoulder pain has been estimated to affect approximately 8% of all American adults, second only to chronic knee pain in our society's burden of musculoskeletal disease. Rotator cuff pathology is the leading cause of shoulder-related disability seen by orthopaedic surgeons, and surgical volume is on the rise. One study, for example, notes a 141% increase in rotator cuff repairs from 1996 to 2006 in the United States. Because rotator cuff disease is such a common condition with evidence of various strength supporting different common treatments, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons published a clinical practice guideline to help elucidate best practices for its treatment. A summary of these guidelines with the strength of the recommendations is available at OrthoGuidelines (http://www.orthoguidelines.org/topic?id=1027) with links to rationale behind each of the conclusions. This study will illustrate the use of these guidelines through presentation and discussion of hypothetical clinical cases.

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic SurgeonsSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207