MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404353360 · doi:10.1016/j.jseint.2024.10.012

Coracoacromial ligament integrity influences scapular spine strain after reverse shoulder arthroplasty

2024· article· en· W4404353360 on OpenAlexaff
Cole T. Fleet, Alicia Kerrigan, G. Daniel G. Langohr, James A. Johnson, George S. Athwal

Bibliographic record

VenueJSES International · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArthroplastyStrain (injury)MedicineAnatomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The purpose of this biomechanical study was to examine the effect of coracoacromial (CA) ligament state (intact vs. released) and arm position on acromial and scapular spine strain following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). Methods: Eight cadaveric shoulders were implanted with a custom rTSA system and tested using an in-vitro shoulder simulator. The specimens were cycled through static range of motion in both abduction and forward elevation; first with the CA ligament in the "intact" state followed by the "released" state. Scapular spine strain was quantified via 4 strain gauges placed along anatomic locations on the acromion and scapular spine. Results: < .001). Discussion: CA ligament release in the setting of rTSA resulted in increased scapular spine and acromial strain with the arm adducted, although these increases in strain were not statistically significant. Caution should be taken intraoperatively as the release of the CA ligament may alter scapular spine and acromion stresses from deltoid loading, which may increase the risk for postoperative scapular spine fracture.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJSES InternationalSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207