MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W201092130

Discoid meniscus in children: treatment and outcome.

2003· article· en· W201092130 on OpenAlexaffabout
Darin Davidson, Merv Letts, Rob Glasgow

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineArthrotomySurgeryMedial meniscusMeniscusResectionArthroscopyOsteoarthritisIncidence (geometry)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Discoid meniscus is an atavistic anomaly in which the meniscus of the knee, predominantly the lateral meniscus, is discoid rather than semilunar in shape. The abnormality is diagnosed relatively infrequently and may even go unrecognized or be untreated. Treatment has consisted of either partial or complete meniscectomy performed either arthroscopically or by open arthrotomy. Our purpose was to examine the outcome of treatment for discoid meniscus in children. METHODS: Since 1974, 34 children, including 2 with bilateral involvement, have been treated for discoid meniscus at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, a major pediatric referral centre. The average age of the children at the time of surgery was 11 years 4 months (range from 6 yr 2 mo-18 yr 6 mo). The average follow-up was 3 years (range from 1 mo-22 yr). The lateral meniscus was affected in 35 of the 36 knees. Treatment consisted of partial resection in 19 cases, complete resection in 13; 4 did not undergo resection. RESULTS: There were 16 excellent, 10 good, 6 fair and 4 poor results at the time of most recent follow-up. In 2 cases degenerative changes were evident radiologically. CONCLUSION: Partial resection of discoid menisci is preferable in children, but in complete dislocation of the entire menisci, total removal is necessary.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.235 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations48
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207