MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042948264 · doi:10.2214/ajr.05.0099

MRI of Articular Cartilage: Revisiting Current Status and Future Directions

2005· review· en· W2042948264 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Roentgenology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCartilageArticular cartilageHyaline cartilageArticular cartilage repairOsteoarthritisCartilage damageMagnetic resonance imagingPathologyRadiologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review the current understanding of the MRI appearance of articular cartilage and its relationship to the microscopic and macroscopic structure of articular cartilage, the optimal pulse sequences to be used in imaging, the appearance of both degenerative and traumatic chondral lesions, the appearance of the most common cartilage repair procedures, and future directions and developments in cartilage imaging. CONCLUSION: Articular cartilage plays an essential role in the function of the diarthrodial joints of the body but is frequently the target of degeneration or traumatic injury. The recent development of several surgical procedures that hold the promise of forming repair tissue that is hyaline or hyalinelike cartilage has increased the need for accurate, noninvasive assessment of both native articular cartilage and postoperative repair tissue. MRI is the optimal noninvasive method for assessment of articular 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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.815

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.306 · 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