<i>Editorial Commentary</i> : Bone Marrow Stimulation Provides Little Benefit for Repair of Full‐Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rotator cuff retears remain the most frequently observed complication after arthroscopic cuff repair, with tendon nonhealing rates reported between 20% and 68%. Biological solutions to improve healing rates are needed, and bone marrow stimulation (also known as trephination, microfracture, and crimson duvet) is an elegant solution to improving healing rates, given its efficiency and low cost-if it works. Previous randomized trials have not shown any significant benefit to microfracture in the setting of cuff repair in terms of functional outcomes or healing rates compared with treatment with cuff repair alone. Recent research suggests that healing rates may be improved with bone marrow stimulation. However, strict adherence to definitions of tendon disruption is necessary and when we only consider full-thickness retears, there does not appear to be any clinical benefit to this treatment approach.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.018 |
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".