MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Incidence and Structural Variety of the Anterior Lateral Ligament of the Knee Joint (LB12)

2014· article· en· W1568772358 on OpenAlexaff
Majid Alimohammadi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLigamentAnatomyArticular capsule of the knee jointCadaverKnee JointMedicineMedial collateral ligamentTibiaLateral meniscusJoint capsuleAnterior cruciate ligamentSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The overall objective of this study is to show the incidence of presence of this ligament and its structural variations in both genders. I began to search for this ligament using 34 embalmed cadavers (14 females and 20 males) in December 2013. Each specimen was carefully dissected and photographed. Based on the findings in this study, the “ALL ligament” was present in 64% (9) of female and 85% (17) of male specimens. From structural point of view, in 46% (12) of cases with the “ALL ligament”, this ligament was in the form of a flat band arising from the lateral collateral ligament of the knee and gradually blending with the capsule of the knee joint above the Gerdy’s tubercle. In the remaining cases (14 = 54%) the “ALL ligament” could be followed down to the tibia close to the Gerdy’s tubercle. In this second group, the “ALL ligament” always had some attachments to the anterior end of the body of the lateral meniscus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques→French-language works237,207→