MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1778029268 · doi:10.7863/jum.2008.27.8.1145

Comparison of Sonography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Spring Ligament Abnormalities

2008· article· en· W1778029268 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTearsMagnetic resonance imagingTendinosisLigamentRadiologyTendonSurgeryTendinopathy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether sonography is as accurate as magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for depicting abnormalities of the spring ligament in patients with symptomatic posterior tibial tendon (PTT) dysfunction. METHODS: Sixteen patients (18 ligaments) with symptomatic PTT dysfunction were prospectively evaluated with sonography and MR imaging. RESULTS: Magnetic resonance imaging showed spring ligament tears in 8 of 18 feet, including 6 incomplete tears and 2 complete tears. Sonography showed spring ligament tears in 7 of 18 feet, including 6 incomplete tears and 1 complete tear. The findings of sonography and MR imaging were concordant in 17 of 18 feet (94%). Six of the 8 spring ligament tears on MR imaging were associated with posterior tibial tendinosis or tears. CONCLUSIONS: Sonography is an effective imaging option in assessing spring ligament abnormalities in patients with symptomatic PTT dysfunction.

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.

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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.284 · 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