MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069847778 · doi:10.1053/jars.2001.22357

Irreducible knee dislocation treated by arthroscopic debridement

2001· article· en· W2069847778 on OpenAlexaff
James Dubberley, Colin D. Burnell, Albert Longstaffe, Peter B. MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineArthroscopyKnee DislocationDebridement (dental)SurgeryLigamentKnee JointReduction (mathematics)Presentation (obstetrics)Magnetic resonance imagingSoft tissueRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case report introduces arthroscopic debridement as a new method of treating an irreducible knee dislocation. The clinical presentation of 2 patients with irreducible knee dislocations, including history, physical examination, a clinical photograph, radiographs, and magnetic resonance images, is presented. As well, intraoperative arthroscopic photographs are included that show the effectiveness of the treatment. A review of the literature reveals that irreducible knee dislocations are rare. The finding of a skin furrow along the joint line was present in all cases. Past treatment usually involved an open procedure to remove the capsuloligamentous structures from the joint. We show that arthroscopy with debridement of these structures resulted in reduction of the joint. Follow-up arthroscopy in 1 patient showed healing of the previously debrided ligament. The ability to debride the interposed soft tissue through the arthroscope allows for reduction of the joint without the need for an open procedure.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designCase report
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgerySame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207