CT-based volumetric assessment of rotator cuff muscle in shoulder arthroplasty preoperative planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims The aim of this study was to describe a quantitative 3D CT method to measure rotator cuff muscle volume, atrophy, and balance in healthy controls and in three pathological shoulder cohorts. Methods In all, 102 CT scans were included in the analysis: 46 healthy, 21 cuff tear arthropathy (CTA), 18 irreparable rotator cuff tear (IRCT), and 17 primary osteoarthritis (OA). The four rotator cuff muscles were manually segmented and their volume, including intramuscular fat, was calculated. The normalized volume (NV) of each muscle was calculated by dividing muscle volume to the patient’s scapular bone volume. Muscle volume and percentage of muscle atrophy were compared between muscles and between cohorts. Results Rotator cuff muscle volume was significantly decreased in patients with OA, CTA, and IRCT compared to healthy patients (p < 0.0001). Atrophy was comparable for all muscles between CTA, IRCT, and OA patients, except for the supraspinatus, which was significantly more atrophied in CTA and IRCT (p = 0.002). In healthy shoulders, the anterior cuff represented 45% of the entire cuff, while the posterior cuff represented 40%. A similar partition between anterior and posterior cuff was also found in both CTA and IRCT patients. However, in OA patients, the relative volume of the anterior (42%) and posterior cuff (45%) were similar. Conclusion This study shows that rotator cuff muscle volume is significantly decreased in patients with OA, CTA, or IRCT compared to healthy patients, but that only minimal differences can be observed between the different pathological groups. This suggests that the influence of rotator cuff muscle volume and atrophy (including intramuscular fat) as an independent factor of outcome may be overestimated. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):552–561.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".