The sizing of hamstring grafts for anterior cruciate reconstruction: intra‐ and inter‐observer reliability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to establish the intra- and inter-observer reliability of hamstring graft measurement using cylindrical sizing tubes. METHODS: Hamstring tendons (gracilis and semitendinosus) were harvested from ten cadavers by a single surgeon and whip stitched together to create ten 4-strand hamstring grafts. Ten sports medicine surgeons and fellows sized each graft independently using either hollow cylindrical sizers or block sizers in 0.5-mm increments—the sizing technique used was applied consistently to each graft. Surgeons moved sequentially from graft to graft and measured each hamstring graft twice. Surgeons were asked to state the measured proximal (femoral) and distal (tibial) diameter of each graft, as well as the diameter of the tibial and femoral tunnels that they would drill if performing an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using that graft. Reliability was established using intra-class correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Overall, both the inter-observer and intra-observer agreement were >0.9, demonstrating excellent reliability. The inter-observer reliability for drill sizes was also excellent (>0.9). Excellent correlation was seen between cylindrical sizing, and drill sizes (>0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Sizing of hamstring grafts by multiple surgeons demonstrated excellent intra-observer and intra-observer reliability, potentially validating clinical studies exploring ACL reconstruction outcomes by hamstring graft diameter when standard techniques are used. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".