ArticleJSES international2026
Machine learning-based prediction of retear after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a multicenter cohort study.
Article in JSES international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rotator cuff retears following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) remain a critical clinical challenge, influenced by patient, tear, and rehabilitation factors. Conventional assessment methods struggle to capture this multifactorial complexity, limiting accurate retear prediction and personalized management. The purpose of this study was to develop a machine learning-based predictive model to stratify the risk of structural retear at 6 months post-operatively. Methods: This study analyzed 1,428 patients with complete datasets from an initial cohort of 3,090 patients who underwent ARCR between January 2011 and May 2024 across four centers. A total of 79 clinical variables were collected, including patient demographics, tear size, range of motion, muscle strength, and pain and functional scores at baseline and at 2-4 months post-operatively. Retear was defined as Sugaya classification type IV or V on standardized 6-month post-operative magnetic resonance imaging. Five machine learning models (Logistic Regression, k-Nearest Neighbors, Support Vector Machine, Convolutional Neural Network, and Multi-Layer Perceptron; [MLP]) were evaluated for retear prediction. Model performance was evaluated using accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Results: The MLP model showed the most favorable numerical performance among the evaluated models, with a retear-class F1-score of 0.76 and precision of 0.92 under a random 80:20 split, and the largest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve among the models tested. However, under temporal validation the retear-class F1-score fell to 0.30, indicating limited generalizability over time. Conclusion: The MLP model demonstrated potential for stratifying the risk of magnetic resonance imaging-defined 6-month structural retear after ARCR and may serve as an adjunctive tool for early post-operative risk stratification. Because it relies on post-operative predictors and has been evaluated only within a single hospital network, external validation is required before clinical use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.