Bibliographic record
Abstract
©2004 British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery doi:10.1302/0301-620X.86B4. 15014 $2.00 J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2004;86-B:469-79. Anterior dislocation of the glenohumeral joint is a common injury of young people playing contact sport and may progress to recurrent episodes of symptomatic instability. The usual treatment for a primary dislocation is a short period of immobilisation followed by a programme of rehabilitation and a gradual return to full activity. An open operation to stabilise the shoulder is a successful procedure for the treatment of patients who develop recurrent instability. The advent of arthroscopic surgery, initially as a diagnostic tool, but more recently to perform therapeutic intervention, has resulted in a variety of minimally-invasive techniques for the management of instability. Arthroscopic stabilisation done as day-care surgery offers attractive advantages over open repair such as improved cosmesis, less postoperative pain, reduced stiffness after operation and more rapid rehabilitation. As a consequence, this technique has been offered as initial treatment after a primary dislocation in an attempt to prevent subsequent instability. However, the results after this procedure have been much more variable than those for open repair. In this review, we examine the recent advances in the understanding of the epidemiology and pathoanatomy of anterior instability of the shoulder after trauma, and compare the relative merits of arthroscopic and open stabilisation in the management of this condition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".