MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304187269 · doi:10.2174/18743250-v16-e2208180

Sternoclavicular Joint Reconstruction with Semitendinosus Allograft and Suture Anchors after Recurrent Posterior Dislocation in a Professional North American Football Player

2022· article· en· W4304187269 on OpenAlexaff
Yung Han, Elizabeth H. Cho, Adriana Martinez, Paul A. Martineau

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open Orthopaedics Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder and Clavicle Injuries
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSternoclavicular jointMedicineFootballSurgeryReduction (mathematics)Presentation (obstetrics)LawClavicle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Posterior sternoclavicular joint dislocations are an extremely rare but potentially life-threatening injury that can occur in sports. A variety of surgical procedures have been proposed, but there is no consensus on the treatment of choice. It is also largely unknown if a safe return to high-risk sports is possible. Case Presentation: We present a case of a posterior sternoclavicular joint dislocation in a 22-year-old male professional North American football player who had a recurrent irreducible posterior dislocation after initial injury management by closed reduction. The patient’s desire to return to football presented unique challenges to management. His sternoclavicular joint was subsequently reconstructed with semitendinosus allograft in a figure-of-eight augmented with suture anchors. After recovery, he returned to play as a running back in professional football symptom-free. Conclusion: Our patient's successful return to playing professional football after the sternoclavicular joint reconstruction suggests that this should be considered an effective treatment option when managing posterior sternoclavicular dislocation in high level contact sports players.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.302 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueThe Open Orthopaedics JournalSame topicShoulder and Clavicle InjuriesFrench-language works237,207