The effect of deep shoulder infections on patient outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a retrospective comparative study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of deep shoulder infections after RCR on patient outcomes. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted involving all patients with deep shoulder infections after arthroscopic RCR (study group). Another group of patients who were matched with the study group by age, gender and rotator cuff tear size, and did not develop deep shoulder infections after arthroscopic RCR were randomly identified (control group). The two groups were compared in terms of time to start physiotherapy, shoulder function, and delay in return to work. Results: There were 10 patients in each group. The mean time to start physiotherapy after surgery was 145.3 (SD=158.8) days for the study group and 40.0 (SD=13.7) days for the control group (p=.051). The average forward elevation of the operated shoulder was 133 (SD=33.4) degrees for the study group, and 172 (SD=12.0) degrees for the control group (p=0.003). The average time to return to work at preoperative level was 5.6 months for the study group and 3 months for the control group. Conclusion: Deep shoulder infections after RCR significantly impedes time to start physiotherapy, shoulder function, and patients' ability to return to work. Level of evidence: III b [retrospective comparative (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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it