MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403663791 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.oa.24.00097

Disparities in Rotator Cuff Tear Progression Definitions and Rates

2024· review· en· W4403663791 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJBJS Open Access · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBeth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterFundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Beijing University of Chemical Technology
KeywordsRotator cuffTearsMedicineNatural historyAsymptomaticMagnetic resonance imagingPopulationSurgeryMeta-analysisSystematic reviewMEDLINEPhysical therapyInternal medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: While rotator cuff tears are prevalent in the general population, the natural history of this disease is unclear. Understanding rotator cuff tear progression is crucial for refining surgical indications and evaluating the necessity of early interventions. This study presents an in-depth analysis of the existing literature on the definitions and progression rates of rotator cuff tears, aiming to enhance clinical decision making and patient outcomes. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, using Medline (PubMed), Embase (Elsevier), and Web of Science databases on January 12, 2023. Articles were identified as relevant to the natural history and progression of asymptomatic and symptomatic partial-thickness (PT) and full-thickness (FT) rotator cuff tears. Those written in English reporting rotator cuff progression rates of tears in adults, based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or ultrasound, were included. After reviewing the articles, the data on the rates of tear progression and associated risk factors were extracted, compiled, and analyzed. The risk of bias was determined using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Twenty-one articles met the inclusion criteria, with 1,831 tears included. The progression rate for all partial thickness tears was 26.7% ± 12.8% at an average follow-up of 2.2 ± 0.9 years, with 5 definitions for tear progression. For FT tears, the progression rate was 54.9% ± 18.6% at a follow-up time of 3.0 ± 2.0 years, with 8 definitions for tear enlargement. A significant difference (p < 0.0001) was found between the progression rates of PT and FT tears. Patients who were initially asymptomatic and became symptomatic had higher progression rates (33%-63%) than those who remained asymptomatic (4%-38%). Conclusion: Further research would benefit by identifying a clinically relevant and standardized definition of rotator cuff tear progression, to describe the natural history of rotator cuff disease, making results more comparable and optimizing treatment planning. Level of Evidence: Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.273
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.286 · 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