MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144609870

Physicians' accuracy and interrator reliability for the diagnosis of unstable meniscal tears in patients having osteoarthritis of the knee.

2001· article· en· W2144609870 on OpenAlexaff
Geoff Dervin, Ian G. Stiell, George A. Wells, Kelly Rody, Jacek Grabowski

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisProspective cohort studySurgeryTearsMeniscusArthroscopyLogistic regressionInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine clinicians' accuracy and reliability for the clinical diagnosis of unstable meniscus tears in patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. SETTING: A single tertiary care centre. PATIENTS: One hundred and fifty-two patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee refractory to conservative medical treatment were selected for prospective evaluation of arthroscopic debridement. INTERVENTION: Arthroscopic debridement of the knee, including meniscal tear and chondral flap resection, without abrasion arthroplasty. OUTCOME MEASURES: A standardized assessment protocol was administered to each patient by 2 independent observers. Arthroscopic determination of unstable meniscal tears was recorded by 1 observer who reviewed a video recording and was blinded to preoperative data. Those variables that had the highest interobserver agreement and the strongest association with meniscal tear by univariate methods were entered into logistic regression to model the best prediction of resectable tears. RESULTS: There were 92 meniscal tears (77 medial, 15 lateral). Interobserver agreement between clinical fellows and treating surgeons was poor to fair (kappa < 0.4) for all clinical variables except radiographic measures, which were good. Fellows and surgeons predicted unstable meniscal tear preoperatively with equivalent accuracy of 60%. Logistic regression modelling revealed that a history of swelling and a ballottable effusion were negative predictors. A positive McMurray test was the only positive predictor of unstable meniscal tear. "Mechanical" symptoms were not reliable predictors in this prospective study. The model was 69% accurate for all patients and 76% for those with advanced medial compartment osteoarthritis defined by a joint space height of 2 mm or less. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscored the difficulty in using clinical variables to predict unstable medial meniscal tears in patients with pre-existing osteoarthritis of the knee. The lack of interobserver agreement must be overcome to ensure that the findings can be generalized to other physician observers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations71
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207