MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214480749 · doi:10.12968/hmed.2021.0446

Management of the failed rotator cuff repair

2022· review· en· W4214480749 on OpenAlexaff
Tanujan Thangarajah, Ian K.Y. Lo

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Hospital Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRotator cuffSurgeryRotator cuff injuryPopulation ageingPopulationIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rotator cuff repair is increasingly being performed, and this is likely to continue to given the ageing population. An improvement in functional outcome can be achieved, with the best results noted in those tendons that go on to heal. Failure of repair following surgery can be associated with debilitating symptoms that are not always amenable to non-operative measures, so further surgery may be indicated for these patients. Several operative strategies have been described, but careful evaluation is required to determine the most suitable option. This review describes the decision-making strategies and treatment options available during management of a failed rotator cuff repair.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Hospital MedicineSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207