Multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing Bankart repair with remplissage and Latarjet procedure in shoulder instability with subcritical bone loss (STABLE): study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recurrent shoulder dislocations often cause attrition of the labrum and progressive loss of the anterior bony contour of the glenoid. Treatment options for this pathology involve either soft tissue repair or bony augmentation procedure. The optimal management for patients with shoulder instability with subcritical bone loss remains unknown and current clinical practice is highly varied. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Shoulder instability Trial comparing Arthroscopic stabilisation Benefits compared with Latarjet procedure Evaluation (STABLE) is an ongoing multicentre, randomised controlled trial of 114 patients diagnosed with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and subcritical glenoid bone loss (10%-20%, measured on 3D CT using circle of best fit technique). Patients are randomised either arthroscopic capsuloligamentous repair (Bankart repair+remplissage) or open or arthroscopic coracoid transfer (Latarjet procedure). The primary outcome of this trial will be the between-group difference in the change from baseline to 24 months postintervention in Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index scores. Secondary outcomes include: (1) rates of recurrent shoulder dislocations and symptoms of instability up to 24 months' postsurgery; (2) clinical outcomes measured by American Shoulder and Elbow Society score, Shoulder Activity Scale, EQ-5D and Patient Satisfaction Scale; (3) physical examination (range of motion, stability); (4) return to previous level of activity/sport; (5) rate of shoulder-related complications and serious adverse events. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol has been reviewed and approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (HiREB; project number 15998) prior to commencement of the trial. Results from the study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal regardless of whether there are statistically significant findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05705479; this study was prospectively registered on clinicaltrials.gov.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.005 |
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".