MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402681088 · doi:10.60118/001c.118939

Bilateral triceps rupture: a review of the literature and case series

2024· review· en· W4402681088 on OpenAlexaff
Amaury Tapia, Alejandro Badía, David Bodansky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Experience & Innovation · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeries (stratigraphy)MedicineHistoryGeologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Distal triceps tendon injuries are the least common of tendon injuries, comprising 1% all cases. This injury is more common in active men, between 30-50 years old. Risk factors include anabolic steroid use, local steroid injections and hyperparathyroidism. The principal mechanism of injury is an eccentric load applied to a contracting triceps. This injury is often misdiagnosed and thus far, bilateral injury has not been reported. Methods Retrospective description of two patients diagnosed with bilateral distal triceps injury with different presentations, treated surgically at a surgical center in the USA. Electronic records were reviewed for patient demographics, rehabilitation and clinical outcomes. Discussion The triceps tendon may be weakened by stem cell or corticoid injections or may cause tendinosis. Early diagnosis and surgical repair with a Krackow-type suture configuration in the triceps and parallel bone tunneling is a safe technique with a secure repair. Graded rehabilitation can offer patients good outcomes for range of motion and strength. Clinicians can explain that patients can expect to return to sport and activity. Conclusion Triceps tendon rupture is a rare, significant injury that requires a secure surgical repair with bone tunnelling. Our experience careful post-operative rehabilitation with gradual motion and strengthening is the key for successful recovery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic Experience & InnovationSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207