Automatic determination of the resection plane for shoulder arthroplasty in arthritic humeri: a deep learning model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The humeral head resection plane relies on the anatomic neck as a reference for shoulder arthroplasty planning and accurate intraoperative placement of the humeral component. However, osteophytes and deformity associated with osteoarthritis often obscures this landmark increasing preoperative planning time and complicating placement of the humeral component. To date, no automated method for identifying the resection plane in arthritic humeri exists. METHODS: Two orthopedic surgeons determined the resection plane of 62 3D-models of the humerus derived from computed tomography scans by digitizing along the anatomic neck and then fitting the resection plane to those points. A deep learning model was then trained on 80% of the humeri and their corresponding resections. Testing was performed on the remaining 20% by inputting 3D humerus models into the trained deep learning model and assessing the predicted resection plane's deviation from the surgeon-defined resection plane. Evaluation metrics included the mean Euclidean distance between the centroids of both planes and the angular error between their normal vectors to quantify model accuracy. RESULTS: For arthritic humeri, the predicted resection plane when compared to the surgeon selected plane had mean absolute errors of 1.4 ± 0.7 mm for the centroid and 3.9 ± 1.6° for the normal vector. In nonarthritic humeri the mean absolute errors were 0.3 ± 0.2 mm and 3.1 ± 1.6, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our deep learning model achieves state-of-the-art accuracy for predicting the location of the resection plane. The model maintains robust performance in arthritic shoulders, enabling further automation of shoulder arthroplasty planning in more complex arthritic cases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".