MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004544905 · doi:10.1111/sae.12042

Regarding the Instability Severity Index Score (ISIS)

2013· article· en· W2004544905 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Bouliane, Lauren A Beaupré, David M Sheps

Bibliographic record

VenueShoulder & Elbow · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIndex (typography)InstabilityPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of our study [2] was to examine the radiographic portion of the instability severity index score (ISIS) and not the score as a whole.We consider the ISIS as a useful tool and would like to acknowledge the considerable work that went into the development of the tool by the original authors.We believe that the ISIS has changed the approach to the treatment of post-traumatic glenohumeral instability.The score has raised a number of very important questions regarding the management of post-traumatic glenohumeral instability and the indications for arthroscopic and open approaches to surgical stabilization.Although our results and those of Rouleau et al.[3] may appear contradictory, both may occur simultaneously, and the results of one do not necessarily invalidate the results of the other.As demonstrated by Rouleau et al. the ISIS score in its entirety is a valid and reliable measure that may be used with confidence in guiding the management of post-traumatic glenohumeral instability [3].Their study has only recently been published and was not available for review at the time of the preparation of our manuscript.Had it been available, it most certainly would have been considered as part of the evaluation of our results, and cited in our paper's discussion.Careful evaluation of the ISIS score allows for an understanding of why these two results may occur concurrently.The first three components of the score, in our opinion, are subject to little debate, and, as such, are reliable between and among observers.For example, the inter-and intra-rater reliability of the first component (age) should be perfect.There is no doubt as to whether an individual is younger than the age of 20 years.Similarly, the next two components are also likely to have near perfect reliability.This represents five points of the total score.The radiographic portion, as we have shown, has moderate reliability.Combining the reliabilities of the score's components mitigates the lower reliability of the radiographic component.Thus, the overall score may still be reliable, and remain a useful clinical tool, despite the lower reliability of the radiographic component.Improving the radiographic component of the ISIS will only serve to strengthen the score and further enhance its clinical utility.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueShoulder & ElbowSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207