MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165856467 · doi:10.1177/230949901302100214

Correlation between Trochlear Dysplasia and Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury

2013· article· en· W2165856467 on OpenAlexaff
Rajesh Botchu, Haron Obaid, Winston J. Rennie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of orthopaedic surgery · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsRoyal University Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChondromalaciaAnterior cruciate ligamentPatellaMagnetic resonance imagingOsteoarthritisAnterior knee painDysplasiaACL injuryArthroscopySurgeryRadiologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE. To evaluate the correlation between trochlear dysplasia and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury METHODS. Magnetic resonance images (MRIs) of 95 knees in 54 males and 36 females aged 4 to 74 (mean, 28) years who had anterior knee pain and suspected ligamentous injury were reviewed. The MRIs were independently reviewed by 2 musculoskeletal radiologists on 2 occasions. According to the Dejour classification, trochlear dysplasia was classified into types A, B, C, and D. Intra-articular injuries/ disorders of the patients included patellofemoral osteoarthritis, chondromalacia patella, meniscal tears, and ligamentous injuries. Intra- and inter-observer variability was calculated. RESULTS. 58 of the knees had trochlear dysplasia, 38 of which were Dejour type A. The intra- and inter-observer variability was good to excellent (Kappa=0.76-1). ACL tear was the most common injury (n=13). No ACL injury occurred in patients without trochlear dysplasia. The odds of having sustained an ACL injury were 8.8 fold greater in Dejour type-A knees than in non-type-A knees (p=0.023). CONCLUSION. Dejour type-A trochlear dysplasia was associated with ACL injuries.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations27
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of orthopaedic surgerySame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207