Patient‐reported, clinical and radiological factors associated with the result after non‐surgical management of acute AC joint dislocation Rockwood type III and V
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The treatment of Rockwood type III and V acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocations is controversial, and an individualized treatment algorithm is yet to be developed. The objective of this study was to investigate the association of demographical, clinical, patient-reported and radiological variables with the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) score and risk of surgery. METHODS: Inclusion criteria for this prospective cohort study were patients aged 18-60 with an acute AC joint dislocation with >25% increase in the coracoclavicular distance on bilateral Zanca radiographs. Patients were treated non-surgically with 3 months of home-based training and the option of delayed surgical intervention. The outcomes were the WOSI score and surgery yes/no. Demographical, clinical, patient-reported (WOSI and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index [SPADI]) and radiological variables were collected at baseline and 6 weeks after the injury and investigated for association with the outcomes at 3 months, 6 months and 1 year. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients with Rockwood type III/V AC joint dislocation were included. Pre-injury participation in overhead/collision sports was a risk factor for surgery with an odds ratio of 5 (p = 0.03). Reduced range of motion (ROM) at baseline was associated with reduced WOSI scores and increased risk of surgery. At 6 weeks, reduced ROM, increased SPADI and increased pain during cross-over were associated with the outcomes. Radiological measurements were not correlated with the result. At the 6 weeks follow-up, patients eventually requiring surgery could be detected with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 94% based on a SPADI score of >30 and a ROM ≤ 140° in shoulder flexion or abduction. CONCLUSION: ROM was the only variable consistently associated with both WOSI and risk of surgery. Six weeks after the injury, it was possible to detect patients in need of surgery based on ROM and SPADI with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 94%. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".