Oblique sagittal view of the anterior cruciate ligament: Comparison of coronal vs. axial planes as localizing sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether oblique sagittal T2-weighted images of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) are better prescribed off axial or coronal localizing images. Thirty-one patients underwent two sets of oblique sagittal T2-weighted fast spin-echo sequences to evaluate the ACL. One oblique was prescribed from a coronal localizing sequence, while the other was prescribed off an axial series. Objective (average number of images to demonstrate ACL) and subjective (radiologist's confidence level) evaluations of both sequences were performed independently of the other and then comparatively by two radiologists. The coronally prescribed sagittal oblique was subjectively preferred in 18 patients, the axially prescribed oblique was preferred in one patient, and both sequences were felt to be equivalent in 12 patients. In 13 intact ligaments, the average number of images clearly demonstrating the entire length of the ACL was 1.77 on the coronally prescribed sequence and 1.31 on the axially prescribed images. Oblique sagittal images prescribed off a coronal localizer are both subjectively and objectively more effective than axially prescribed sagittal obliques in evaluating the ACL.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".