<b>High-Resolution Sonography of the Triangular Fibrocartilage:</b> Initial Experience and Correlation with MRI and Arthroscopic Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to compare the findings of high-resolution sonography of the triangular fibrocartilage with those of MRI and arthroscopy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Thirteen patients with clinically suspected triangular fibrocartilage tears prospectively underwent sonography, followed by MRI, of their wrists. Triangular fibrocartilage tears were classified as predominantly ulnar or predominantly radial. Only the surgeon was aware of the results of both studies, and eight patients subsequently underwent arthroscopy. The findings of the different techniques were compared. RESULTS: For the presence or absence of a tear, seven (87.5%) of eight sonographic examinations correlated with arthroscopy, and 11 (84.6%) of 13 sonographic examinations correlated with MRI. Sonography missed one small radial tear that was detected at arthroscopy and MRI, but sonography showed an ulnar tear in triangular fibrocartilage that appeared normal on MRI. CONCLUSION: High-resolution sonography shows good correlation with MRI and arthroscopy for the evaluation of triangular fibrocartilage tears. Sonography has the potential to be a rapid and cost-effective means of diagnosing tears of the triangular fibrocartilage, particularly those involving the ulnar aspect of the cartilage.
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) | 0.000 | 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".