MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414084989 · doi:10.5435/jaaos-d-24-00696

Acromioclavicular Separations: Complications and How to Avoid Them

2025· article· en· W4414084989 on OpenAlexaff
Emmanuel Nnamdi Osadebey, Stephan G. Pill, Geoff D. Abrams, James M. Gregory

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder and Clavicle Injuries
Canadian institutionsObject Research Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcromioclavicular jointComplicationMEDLINESurgical proceduresOrthopedic Procedures

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Management of acromioclavicular separations remains controversial. A variety of surgical techniques have been described, but no clear consensus has formed regarding optimal treatment. As these techniques have evolved, so have the complication profiles. This review aims provide a review of the complications following management of acromioclavicular joint injections based on the chosen surgical technique. Complications of nonsurgical treatment will also be highlighted. Evidence-based strategies for minimizing complications are provided to allow surgeons to optimize both their preoperative patient discussion and intraoperative decision making.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic SurgeonsSame topicShoulder and Clavicle InjuriesFrench-language works237,207