Three‐Dimensional (3D) Animation and Calculation for the Assessment of Engaging Hill–Sachs Lesions With Computed Tomography 3D Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To dynamically assess for Hill–Sachs engagement with animated 3‐dimensional (3D) shoulder models. Methods We created 3D shoulder models from reconstructed computed tomography (CT) images from a consecutive series of patients with recurrent anterior dislocation. They were divided into 2 groups based on the perceived Hill–Sachs severity. For our cohort of 14 patients with recurrent anterior dislocation, 4 patients had undergone osteoarticular allografting of Hill–Sachs lesions and 10 control patients had undergone CT scanning to quantify bone loss but no treatment for bony pathology. A biomechanical analysis was performed to rotate each 3D model using local coordinate systems to the classical vulnerable position of the shoulder (abduction = 90°, external rotation = 0‐135°) and through a functional range. A Hill–Sachs lesion was considered “dynamically” engaging if the angle between the lesion’s long axis and anterior glenoid was parallel. Results : In the vulnerable position of the shoulder, none of the Hill–Sachs lesions aligned with the anterior glenoid in any of our patients. However, in our simulated physiological shoulder range, all allograft patients and 70% of controls had positions producing alignment. Conclusions The technique offers a visual representation of an engaging Hill–Sachs using 3D‐animated reconstructions with open‐source software and CT images. In our series of patients, we found multiple shoulder positions that align the Hill–Sachs and glenoid axes that do not necessarily meet the traditional definition of engagement. Identifying all shoulder positions at risk of “engaging,” in a broader physiological range, may have critical implications toward selecting the appropriate surgical management of bony defects. Level of Evidence level III, case‐control study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".