Measuring the anterior cruciate ligament’s footprints by three‐dimensional magnetic resonance imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare 3D MR imaging and open cadaveric measurements of the ACL's footprints to see whether 3D MR imaging measurements are accurate enough to be used for preoperative templating in anatomic ACL reconstruction. METHODS: Eight formalin-injected cadaveric knees were scanned by rapid acquisition isotropic 3D MR imaging. The femoral and tibial footprints were measured on MR imaging and compared with cadaveric dissection. Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the level of agreement. RESULTS: The AM and PL bundles were clearly appreciated in each specimen by 3D MR imaging and cadaveric dissection. The average paired difference in the femoral and tibial footprint measurements was 2, 1, 2, and 2 mm for the femoral footprint length, femoral footprint width, tibial footprint length, and tibial footprint width, respectively. The individual paired measurements were all within the mean difference ± two standard deviations of the difference in the Bland-Altman plot showing strong agreement. CONCLUSION: Measuring the ACL's footprint by 3D MR imaging or open cadaveric dissection has strong agreement and can be used interchangeably. 3D MR imaging has the potential to allow surgeons to: (1) tailor ACL reconstruction technique or graft choice based on ACL footprint size, (2) plan for selective bundle ACL reconstruction for partial tears, and (3) preoperatively template tunnel position according to the patient's individual anatomy.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".