MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090899270 · doi:10.1002/jmri.22672

MR imaging of the postoperative knee

2011· review· en· W2090899270 on OpenAlexaff
Ralph Gnannt, Avneesh Chhabra, John Theodoropoulos, Juerg Hodler, Gustav Andreisek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOrthopedic surgeryArthroscopyMeniscusMedial meniscusMedial collateral ligamentLateral meniscusAnterior cruciate ligamentKnee JointMagnetic resonance imagingSurgeryRadiologyLigamentPosterior cruciate ligamentOsteoarthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in orthopedic and arthroscopic surgical procedures of the knee such as, knee replacement, ligamentous reconstruction as well as articular cartilage and meniscus repair techniques have resulted in a significant increase in the number of patients undergoing knee arthroscopy or open surgery. As a consequence postoperative MR imaging examinations increase. Comprehensive knowledge of the normal postoperative MR imaging appearances and abnormal findings in the knee associated with failure or complications of common orthopedic and arthroscopic surgical procedures currently undertaken is crucial. This article reviews the various normal and pathological postoperative MR imaging findings following anterior and posterior cruciate ligament, medial collateral ligament and posterolateral corner reconstruction, meniscus and articular cartilage surgery as well as total knee arthroplasty with emphasis on those surgical procedures which general radiologists will likely be faced in their daily clinical routine.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Magnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207