MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408124541 · doi:10.1016/j.eats.2025.103496

Distal Clavicle Insufficiency: Reconstruction With Iliac Crest Autograft of the Distal Clavicle and Acromioclavicular‐Coracoclavicular Reconstruction

2025· article· en· W4408124541 on OpenAlexaff
Mikalyn T. DeFoor, Michael G. Rizzo, Marco Adriani, Ryan J. Whalen, S Hurley, Nate J Dickinson, Matthew T. Provencher

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy Techniques · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder and Clavicle Injuries
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)
FundersAmerican Shoulder and Elbow SurgeonsAmerican Academy of Orthopaedic SurgeonsArthroscopy Association of North AmericaAmerican Orthopaedic Society for Sports MedicineArthrex
KeywordsMedicineIliac crestClavicleAcromioclavicular jointSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distal clavicle insufficiency, or a loss of the bony structure of the distal clavicle, generally after an injury or surgical procedure, may result in shoulder pain, dysfunction, scapular dyskinesia, and chronic acromioclavicular joint instability. If more than 15 to 20 mm of the distal clavicle is missing, chronic posterior instability of the distal clavicle may ensue and impinge on the deltotrapezial fascia and scapular spine. Although soft tissue reconstruction of the acromioclavicular-coracoclavicular (AC-CC) ligaments is a reliable procedure, if there is 15 to 20 mm or more of distal clavicle missing, it may be difficult to restore the mechanics of the scapular and glenohumeral joint. These can be seen after open or arthroscopic Mumford procedures (distal clavicle excision), AC-CC reconstructions with fracture, distal clavicle fractures, and other mechanisms. This technique article outlines an approach to distal clavicle insufficiency (>20 mm of missing distal clavicle bone) with iliac crest bone autograft reconstruction of the distal clavicle augmented with AC-CC soft tissue reconstruction.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy TechniquesSame topicShoulder and Clavicle InjuriesFrench-language works237,207