Comparison of the spread pattern of medial-to-lateral and lateral-to-medial rotator interval injections: A cadaveric study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Rotator interval (RI) corticosteroid injections are used to alleviate pain associated with adhesive capsulitis, though the pattern of injectate spread remains unclear. The purpose of this anatomical study was to assess the staining patterns of intra-articular, intracapsular/extrasynovial, and pericapsular structures of the glenohumeral joint following medial-to-lateral and lateral-to-medial RI injections. Design: Ten cadaveric specimens were injected with a methylene blue dye injectate: five using a medial-to-lateral RI injection technique and five using a lateral-to-medial RI injection technique. Serial dissection was performed to assess the staining of intra-articular, intracapsular/extrasynovial, and pericapsular structures. The frequency of capture and degree of staining were compared between injection groups. Results: The lateral-to-medial injection resulted in the capture of all intra-articular; intracapsular/extrasynovial; and pericapsular structures, whereas the medial-to-lateral injection did not consistently stain all structures. Intracapsular/extrasynovial structures (superior glenohumeral ligament and the long head of biceps tendon) were more darkly stained in the lateral-to-medial group, and pericapsular structures (supraspinatus tendon and coracohumeral ligament) were more darkly stained in the medial-to-lateral group. Conclusion: The frequency of capture and degree of staining of intra-articular, intracapsular/extrasynovial, and pericapsular structures of the glenohumeral joint differed between medial-to-lateral and lateral-to-medial RI injection techniques, which may influence outcomes in pain management for adhesive capsulitis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".