MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058037360 · doi:10.1007/s00167-010-1125-1

Short‐ and mid‐term results of plica excision in patients with mediopatellar plica and associated cartilage degeneration

2010· article· en· W2058037360 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ahmet Güney, Ökkeş Bilal, Mithat Öner, Mehmet Gökhan Halıcı, Yildirim Türk, Mehmet Tuncel

Bibliographic record

VenueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWOMACMedicineOsteoarthritisDegeneration (medical)PatellaCartilageSurgeryCondylePathologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to evaluate the short- and mid-term results of plica excision in patients with mediopatellar plica and associated cartilage degeneration. Seventy-six surgically treated patients with mediopatellar plica and associated cartilage degeneration at medial femoral condyle (MFC) and/or medial pole of patella were included. Patients were evaluated at baseline, at 6 weeks and 6 months after the operation for their clinical outcomes and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores. The frequency of all signs and symptoms, including all pain parameters, and WOMAC scores were significantly improved compared to baseline, at 6 weeks and 6 months after the operation (P < 0.017). Based on mean WOMAC scores, results of most patients were rated as excellent both at 6 weeks (88%) and at 6 months (94%). Surgical excision of mediopatellar plica associated with cartilage degeneration appears to result in substantial clinical improvement, thus it represents an effective treatment modality.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations25
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology ArthroscopySame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207