Reproducibility and clinical utility of tendon palpation to detect patellar tendinopathy in young basketball players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Palpation is an important clinical test for jumper's knee. OBJECTIVES: To (a) test the reproducibility of palpation tenderness, (b) evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of palpation in subjects with clinical symptoms of jumper's knee, and (c) determine whether tenderness to palpation may serve as a useful screening test for patellar tendinopathy. The yardstick for diagnosis of patellar tendinopathy was ultrasonographic abnormality. METHODS: In 326 junior symptomatic and asymptomatic athletes' tendons, palpation was performed by a single examiner before ultrasonographic examination by a certified ultrasound radiologist. In 58 tendons, palpation was performed twice to test reliability. Tenderness to palpation was scored on a scale from 0 to 3 where 0 represented no pain, and 1, 2, and 3 represented mild, moderate, and severe tenderness respectively. RESULTS: Patellar tendon palpation was a reliable examination for a single examiner (Pearson r = 0.82). In symptomatic tendons, the positive predictive value of palpation was 68%. As a screening examination in asymptomatic subjects, the positive predictive value of tendon palpation was 36-38%. Moderate and severe palpation tenderness were better predictors of ultrasonographic tendon pathology than absent or mild tenderness (p<0.001). Tender and symptomatic tendons were more likely to have ultrasound abnormality than tenderness alone (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this age group, palpation is a reliable test but it is not cost effective in detecting patellar tendinopathy in a preparticipation examination. In symptomatic tendons, palpation is a moderately sensitive but not specific test. Mild tenderness in the patellar tendons in asymptomatic jumping athletes should be considered normal.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".