Medial Meniscus Tear Morphology and Chondral Degeneration of the Knee: Is There a Relationship?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the association of medial meniscus tear morphology with the pathogenesis of articular cartilage degeneration. METHODS: From May 2006 to December 2007, we prospectively evaluated 103 patients diagnosed with an isolated medial meniscus tear. Meniscus tear morphology and location, cartilage degeneration according to the Noyes score, and covariates including age, body mass index, gender, and injury date were documented. The relationship between severity of articular cartilage degeneration and meniscus tear morphology was analyzed by analysis of variance. Regression analysis was used to analyze predictors of severity of cartilage lesions. RESULTS: Analysis of variance showed significant differences in the severity of articular cartilage lesions based on medial meniscus tear morphology (P < .05). Compared with bucket-handle/vertical tears, root and radial/flap tears were associated with significantly greater degeneration on the medial femoral condyle; root and complex tears were associated with significantly greater degeneration on the medial tibial plateau; and radial/flap tears were associated with significantly greater degeneration on the lateral tibial plateau. Age and gender were significant predictors of the Noyes medial-compartment score, and age, body mass index, and meniscus tear morphology were significant predictors of the Noyes lateral-compartment score. CONCLUSIONS: Meniscus tears with increasing disruption of the circumferential meniscal fibers were significantly associated with cartilage lesions of increasing severity in both the medial and lateral compartments of the knee. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, prognostic case series.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".