MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154093712 · doi:10.1177/0363546514530293

MRI Anatomy of the Tibial ACL Attachment and Proximal Epiphysis in a Large Population of Skeletally Immature Knees

2014· article· en· W2154093712 on OpenAlexaff
Vimarsha G. Swami, Myles Mabee, Catherine Hui, Jacob L. Jaremko

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Sports Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpiphysisAnterior cruciate ligamentMedicineSagittal planeAnatomyTibiaMagnetic resonance imagingPopulationOrthodonticsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To aid in performing anatomic physeal-sparing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, it is important for surgeons to have reference data for the native ACL attachment positions and epiphyseal anatomy in skeletally immature knees. PURPOSE: To characterize anatomic parameters of the ACL tibial insertion and proximal tibial epiphysis at magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a large population of skeletally immature knees. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: The ACL tibial attachment site and proximal epiphysis were examined in 570 skeletally immature knees with an intact ACL (age, 6-15 years) using 1.5-T proton density-weighted sagittal MRI; also measured were the tibial anteroposterior diameter; anterior, central, and posterior ACL attachment positions; vertical height of the epiphysis; and maximum oblique epiphyseal depth extending from the ACL tibial attachment center to the tibial tuberosity. RESULTS: In adolescents (11-15 years of age), the center of the ACL's tibial attachment was 51.5% ± 5.7% of the anteroposterior diameter of the tibia, with no significant differences between sexes or age groups (P > .05 in all cases). Mean vertical epiphyseal height was 15.9 ± 1.7 mm in the adolescent group, with significant differences between 11-year-olds (15.2 ± 1.5 mm) and 15-year-olds (16.6 ± 1.6 mm), P < .001, and between males (16.6 ± 1.5 mm) and females (14.8 ± 1.4), P < .001. Mean maximum oblique depth was 30.0 ± 5.3 mm, with a significant difference between 11-year-olds (26.7 ± 4.9 mm) and 15-year-olds (32.7 ± 5.1 mm), P < .001, and between males (29.7 ± 6.4 mm) and females (27.8 ± 5.2 mm), P < .001. The maximum oblique depth occurred at a mean angle of ~50°, and this angle did not change with age or sex. There was a significant moderate correlation (r = 0.39, P < .001) between epiphyseal vertical height and maximum oblique depth. CONCLUSION: The center of the ACL tibial attachment was consistently near 51% of the anteroposterior diameter, regardless of age or sex. The vertical depth of the tibial epiphysis was ~16 mm in adolescents. Maximum oblique depth from ACL attachment was ~30 mm, occurring at a mean angle ~50° regardless of age or sex. The normative values for tibial ACL attachment and epiphyseal anatomy presented here may be helpful in selecting candidates for surgery and in planning surgical approaches for pediatric ACL reconstruction.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207