Developing a machine learning algorithm to predict probability of retear and functional outcomes in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair surgery: protocol for a retrospective, multicentre study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of rotator cuff tear repair surgery is influenced by multiple patient-related, pathology-centred and technical factors, which is thought to contribute to the reported retear rates between 17% and 94%. Adequate patient selection is thought to be essential in reaching satisfactory results. However, no clear consensus has been reached on which factors are most predictive of successful surgery. A clinical decision tool that encompassed all aspects is still to be made. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning algorithms use complex self-learning models that can be used to make patient-specific decision-making tools. The aim of this study is to develop and train an algorithm that can be used as an online available clinical prediction tool, to predict the risk of retear in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study using pooled individual patient data from multiple studies of patients who have undergone rotator cuff repair and were evaluated by advanced imaging for healing at a minimum of 6 months after surgery. This study consists of two parts. Part one: collecting all potential factors that might influence retear risks from retrospective multicentre data, aiming to include more than 1000 patients worldwide. Part two: combining all influencing factors into a model that can clinically be used as a prediction tool using machine learning. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: For safe multicentre data exchange and analysis, our Machine Learning Consortium adheres to the WHO regulation 'Policy on Use and Sharing of Data Collected by WHO in Member States Outside the Context of Public Health Emergencies'. The study results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Institutional Review Board approval does not apply to the current study protocol.
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 | 0.065 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.005 |
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".