MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044859549 · doi:10.5792/ksrr.2013.25.2.88

Bilateral Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Femoral Condyles in Both Knees: A Report of Two Sibling Cases

2013· article· en· W2044859549 on OpenAlexaff
Jae-Hoon Jeong, Randy Mascarenhas, Hang Seob Yoon

Bibliographic record

VenueKnee Surgery and Related Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteochondritis dissecansMedicineFEMORAL CONDYLESurgeryOsteochondritisAutologous chondrocyte implantationFixation (population genetics)CondyleTransplantationAnatomyArticular cartilageCartilageOsteoarthritisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Case Reports 1. Case 1A 32-year-old female visited our hospital with a complaint of right knee pain.She had come three months ago for similar symptoms and had been diagnosed with OCD of the right knee based on clinical presentation and imaging studies obtained at that time.At the latest presentation, the pain increased in severity and the patient required a cane for ambulation due to a catching sensation in her right knee.Physical examination revealed moderate swelling and stiffness of the right knee.Localized tenderness was noted on the lateral and medial joint lines and twenty degrees of passive extension was lost.Standing weight-bearing posterior-anterior radiographs were obtained and revealed irregularities of bilateral femoral condyles in both knees on the weight-bearing portion of the femur (Fig. 1).Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed a fragment in the center of the both femoral condyles with bone marrow edema.A fissure between the articular fragment and femoral bone base was also seen.Additionally, a 2.8 cm by 2.5 cm displaced articular loose body shadow was noticed on the lateral femoral condyle. 1) Operative techniqueThe patient was brought to the operating room and prepped and draped in the standard sterile fashion.Arthroscopic examination was performed first and findings revealed a 2.8 cm

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)0.001
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 score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnee Surgery and Related ResearchSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207