MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2273997478 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095145

Intra-articular hip injections: is there a role for ultrasound?

2016· letter· en· W2273997478 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Lian, Bruce B. Forster

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurovascular bundleMedicineFluoroscopyUltrasoundRadiologyMedical physicsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Injection of medications such as corticosteroids, local anaesthetics and viscosupplements are becoming increasingly important means of diagnosis and local, targeted treatment of various hip pathologies, in particular, osteoarthritis.1 ,2 Obtaining needle access to the hip joint is challenging due to its deep anatomic location and proximity to neurovascular structures, and therefore, imaging guidance is often advocated. Fluoroscopy has been the traditional method of choice for needle placement; sonography offers additional benefits in visualisation of neurovascular structures, lack of ionising radiation, portability and possibly decreased cost. In the typical practitioner office setting, ultrasound-guided injection is the only alternative to landmark-guided injection. Comparisons of accuracy between these two methods, however, have not been directly evaluated. Hoeber et al ’s3 meta-analysis compares the accuracy of these two injection methods. Ultrasound-guided procedures have shown substantial growth in the last decade, increasing by 100.8% from 2004 to 2010, with non-radiologists accounting for 72.2% of this growth.4 Yet the …

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0160.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine→Same topicHip disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→