Current Concepts in Instrumented Knee-Laxity Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Instrumented knee laxity testing devices have been used in both the clinical and research setting to evaluate persons with injuries about the knee. The ability to accurately and reproducibly quantify knee motion has the potential to greatly benefit both clinical practice and research by improving the validity of the research involving treatment of knee-ligament injuries. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A thorough literature review was performed, and a systematic overview is provided evaluating the methods of use and the evidence for the use of instrumented knee laxity testing devices. RESULTS: Devices that provide measurements of knee laxity have evolved during the past 30 years. The authors describe in detail their proper use and the best estimates of their validity based on clinical studies. CONCLUSION: The review suggests that the KT-1000 knee arthrometer and the Rolimeter provide best results when testing anterior laxity at the knee, whereas the Telos device is superior for the assessment of posterior laxity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".