Automatic bicipital groove identification in arthritic humeri for preoperative planning: A Random Forest Classifier approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bicipital groove is an important anatomical feature of the proximal humerus that needs to be identified during surgical planning for procedures such as shoulder arthroplasty and proximal humeral fracture reconstruction. Current algorithms for automatic identification prove ineffective in arthritic humeri due to the presence of osteophytes, reducing their usefulness for total shoulder arthroplasty. Our methodology involves the use of a Random Forest Classifier (RFC) to automatically detect the bicipital groove on segmented computed tomography scans of humeri. We evaluated our model on two distinct test datasets: one comprising non-arthritic humeri and another with arthritic humeri characterized by significant osteophytes. Our model detected the bicipital groove with a mean absolute error of less than 1mm on arthritic humeri, demonstrating a significant improvement over the previous gold standard approach. Successful identification of the bicipital groove with a high degree of accuracy even in arthritic humeri was accomplished. This model is open source and included in the python package shoulder.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".