Rotator Cuff Injury and Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rotator cuff pathology is a commonly encountered clinical and radiologic entity that can manifest as tendinopathy or tearing. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography offer similar sensitivity and specificity for the evaluation of the native rotator cuff, and the chosen modality may vary, depending on local practice and accessibility. MR arthrography is frequently used in the postoperative setting as a problem-solving tool. Key findings to include in the preoperative MRI report include the size and location of the tear, thickness of the tendon involved (partial versus full thickness), and overall tendon quality. The report should also address features associated with poor surgical outcomes, such as fatty atrophy, a decreased acromiohumeral interval, and evidence of rotator cuff arthropathy. Musculoskeletal radiologists should be familiar with the various surgical techniques and expected postoperative imaging appearance of rotator cuff repairs. Imaging also plays a role in identifying recurrent tearing, graft failure, hardware loosening, infection, and other complications.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".