Perceived vs. true glenoid anchor placement: a cadaveric comparison of the beach chair and lateral position
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To explore whether patient position influences a surgeon's ability to accurately judge anchor position on the glenoid. Materials and Methods Two anchors were inserted into the glenoid of 8 shoulders. Arthroscopic videos were taken from 3 views (posterior beach chair [pBC], posterior lateral decubitus [pLD], and anterosuperolateral decubitus [asLD]). The shoulders were disarticulated to identify "true" anchor position. Seventeen shoulder surgeons reviewed the videos and indicated anchor positions using the "clock face" method. Accuracy was measured within tolerances, ranging from zero (exact), 0.5 (half-hour), 1.0, and 1.5 hours of "true" position. Intra- and inter-rater agreement was calculated. Post hoc analyses explored for bias dependent on surgical side. Results The overall accuracy was 34.0%. At tolerances of 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 hours, accuracy increased to 82.4%, 95.4%, and 98.0%. With a 30° scope, identification of exact position was more accurate in pBC than pLD (odds ratio [OR] = 1.397; P = .029) but not asLD (OR =1.341; P = .197). At a tolerance of 0.5 hour, the 30° scope was more accurate in pBC than both pLD (OR = 1.444; P = .011) and asLD (OR = 1.728; P = .009). In left shoulders, anchors were perceived as more inferior than true position in asLD and pLD. In right shoulders, anchors were perceived as more superior than true position from pBC and pLD. Inter- and intrarater agreement were highest in pBC with a 30° scope (30° scope weighted kappa=0.783 and 70° scope weighted kappa=0.853, respectively). Conclusion Judgment of anchor position on video is most accurate in a pBC view. Inter- and intrarater reliability were also highest from a pBC view.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".