Correlation between superior humeral head migration and proximal long head of biceps tendon pathology in patients with and without rotator cuff tears using magnetic resonance imaging and radiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The biomechanical role of the proximal long head of the biceps tendon (PLHB) in glenohumeral joint stability remains controversial. This retrospective study aims to correlate between humeral head migration and PLHB pathology in patients with and without rotator cuff tendon tears using imaging. Methods Seventy-nine patients who underwent 3T magnetic resonance imaging of the shoulder were retrospectively reviewed. Imaging findings were documented by a fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologist. PLHB tendon diameter change, contour irregularity, and signal intensity change were assessed. Rotator cuff status was given a binary assignment of intact vs. torn. Radiographs were used for measurement of the acromiohumeral distance and a cutoff value of 7 mm was set as a lower limit of normal. Results In the cohort of 79 shoulders, 41.8% (33/79) of patients had intact PLHB tendon and rotator cuff, 26.6% (21/79) demonstrated isolated PLHB tendon pathology, 13.9% (11/79) demonstrated isolated rotator cuff tears, and 17.7% (14/79) demonstrated concomitant PLHB tendon pathology and rotator cuff tears. Acromiohumeral distance was preserved in 97.0% (32/33) of patients with intact PLHB tendon and rotator cuff, 28.6% (6/21) of patients with isolated PLHB tendon pathology, 81.8% (9/11) of patients with isolated rotator cuff tears, and 14.3% (2/14) of patients with concomitant PLHB tendon pathology and rotator cuff tears ( P < .0001). Conclusion Results of this study have shown that a statistical correlation was present between superior humeral head migration and PLHB tendon pathology with or without rotator cuff tears, compared to rotator cuff pathology alone. Findings suggest that intact PLHB tendon plays an important role in glenohumeral stability.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".