MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156821094 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2011-090661

Evaluating bone marrow oedema patterns in musculoskeletal injury

2012· review· en· W2156821094 on OpenAlexaff
Michael G. Kozoriz, Julia Grebenyuk, Gordon Andrews, Bruce B. Forster

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMusculoskeletal injuryMusculoskeletal painAcute injuryPhysical therapySports injuryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRadiologyPathologySurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MRI is a common tool in the evaluation of musculoskeletal injury that allows the clinician to pinpoint specific pathologies. The patient's history and physical exam play a critical role in the diagnosis of sports injuries, however, complementary imaging can play an important role in determining the nature and extent of injury. With the widespread use of MRI, attention has focused on the signals generated following injury. In particular, bone marrow oedema (BME) patterns can be used to aid in the diagnosis of musculoskeletal injury. In this pictorial essay, the authors will demonstrate common patterns of BME that accompany a wide range of musculoskeletal injuries. It is expected that by the end of this article, the reader will be able to (1) recognise BME is a phenomenon observed on MRI following sports injury; (2) recognise typical patterns of BME; (3) understand the relationship of oedema to the type of injury and (4) in the presence of oedema, understand other co-existing injuries that ultimately may have an impact on management.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicOrthopedic Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207