MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399510326 · doi:10.1177/03635465241255143

Supraspinatus Muscle and Tendon Characteristics 1 Year After Surgical Rotator Cuff Repair Compared With Contralateral Shoulder: Data From the CUT-N-MOVE Trial

2024· article· en· W4399510326 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Birgitte Hougs Kjær, René B. Svensson, Susan Warming, S. Peter Magnusson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Sports Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotator cuffMedicineTendonSupraspinatus muscleSurgeryRotator cuff injuryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: It is necessary to better understand the structural characteristics of the supraspinatus tendon and associated muscle after rotator cuff repair and in the event of retear. Purpose: To study structural differences between the repaired and contralateral shoulders 1 year after rotator cuff repair in patients who received either progressive exercise therapy (PR) or usual care (UC) in a randomized controlled trial and to investigate whether there was interaction with tendon retear and limb dominance. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients with surgically repaired traumatic full-thickness rotator cuff tears involving the supraspinatus tendon were included. After surgery, they were randomized to PR or UC (active from postoperative week 2 or 6, respectively). The subacromial structures (acromiohumeral distance, supraspinatus tendon thickness, and vascularity) and the supraspinatus muscle thickness were examined with ultrasound at the 1-year follow-up. Results: A total of 79 patients were included. The characteristics of the 2 intervention groups (PR and UC) were comparable, including the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index score and number of retears. The authors found significantly thinner supraspinatus tendon (PR, P < .001; UC, P = .003) and reduced acromiohumeral distance (PR, P = .023; UC, P = .025) in the repaired versus the contralateral shoulders in both intervention groups. For neovascularization, there was no interlimb difference in either of the groups or between groups (PR vs UC). In patients with intact tendons, there was no interlimb difference in the muscle thickness, but in patients with tendon retear the muscle was significantly thinner on the repaired side ( P = .024 and P < .001, respectively). When the dominant supraspinatus tendon was repaired (both groups), it was significantly thinner than the nondominant healthy tendon, but this difference was not seen when the nondominant supraspinatus tendon was repaired ( P = .006). Conclusion: One year after rotator cuff surgery, the repaired supraspinatus tendon was significantly thinner and the corresponding acromiohumeral distance was reduced. In patients with retear, the supraspinatus muscle was significantly thinner on the repaired side and early initiation of tendon-loading exercises did not affect these findings. Registration: NCT02969135 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207