MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037090820 · doi:10.1115/sbc2009-206323

Quantification of In Vivo Knee Joint Laxity

2009· article· en· W2037090820 on OpenAlexaff
Lindsey Westover, Jessica Küpper, Janet L. Ronsky

Bibliographic record

VenueASME 2009 Summer Bioengineering Conference, Parts A and B · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnee JointBiomechanicsLigamentJoint hypermobilityJoint stiffnessAnterior cruciate ligamentJoint (building)ArthritisOsteoarthritisStiffnessCartilageJoint capsuleOrthodonticsMedicineInstabilityAnatomyMaterials scienceSurgeryMechanicsStructural engineeringPhysicsEngineeringPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In biomechanical terms, passive joint laxity is a measure of joint movement within the constraints of ligaments, capsule, and cartilage [1] when an external force is applied to the joint during a state of muscular relaxation. Excessive knee joint laxity (reduced stiffness) can result from soft tissue injury, such as a ligament tear, or from genetic factors such as benign joint hypermobility syndrome, and can predispose the joint to instability including recurrent dislocations, and low-grade inflammatory arthritis [2]. The link between laxity and instability may be better understood if laxity can be reliably and accurately quantified. To more fully understand the underlying joint mechanics, it is necessary to quantify both gross knee joint stiffness as well as the stiffness characteristics of individual joint structures, such as the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASME 2009 Summer Bioengineering Conference, Parts A and BSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207