Detection of meniscal tears by arthroscopy and arthrotomy in dogs with cranial cruciate ligament rupture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare detection of meniscal tears associated with cranial cruciate ligament insufficiency by either arthroscopy or arthrotomy. METHODS: A retrospective, cohort study was completed with stifles (n = 531) of dogs with cranial cruciate ligament rupture. Either a medial parapatellar arthrotomy or an arthroscopy procedure was performed and groups were compared for significant differences in meniscal tears detected using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Arthroscopy was performed on 58.8% and arthrotomy on 41.2% of the stifles. In total, 44.4% of the examined stifles had meniscal tears. Meniscal tears were found in 38.8% of the stifles examined by arthrotomy, and 48.4% of those examined by arthroscopy. Overall, the rate of detection of a meniscal tear was significantly different (p = 0.019) between the groups, and meniscal tears were observed more frequently by arthroscopy than by arthrotomy (odds ratio 1.54; 95% confidence interval 1.07 - 2.22). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: These results suggest that arthroscopy may be more sensitive than arthrotomy for detection of meniscal pathology in clinical patients. However, these results must be interpreted with caution since this was a retrospective study. Randomized prospective clinical studies are required to further test this hypothesis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".