CT Scan Assessment of the Syndesmosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Anatomic reduction of the fibula with regard to the tibia is the goal when treating syndesmotic injuries. No objective method exists to describe the distal tibiofibular relationship. The primary and secondary objectives of this study was to describe and validate radiologic measurements of the syndesmosis and to establish a set of normal values, respectively. METHODS: A set of 6 measurements and 2 angles were defined on axial computed tomography scans. These measures describe distal tibiofibular anatomy in rotation, lateral translation, and anteroposterior position. A series of 100 ankle computed tomography scans were measured by 2 evaluators. Interobserver reliability was assessed on a subset of 30 scans by 3 different evaluators. Measurements were repeated 6 weeks later by 2 evaluators for intraobserver reliability. All correlations were evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Good correlations for nearly all measurements were found, with intraclass correlation coefficients over 0.5. The lateral translation was the most reliable measure with a mean value of 2.8 mm. The mean ratio of anterior tibiofibular distance to posterior tibiofibular distance was 0.54. Proximal to tibial plafond, the fibula is internally rotated 8.7 degrees and at the talar dome level it is in 6.9 degrees of external rotation. CONCLUSIONS: Several studies have shown that the reduction of the syndesmosis is essential to restore normal ankle mechanics and prevent secondary degenerative changes. The evaluation criteria developed in this study can give the surgeon a guideline for evaluating syndesmosis anatomy with reliable parameters. Concerning the normal range of motion, our radiologic measurements of 100 normal ankles showed that a significant amount of variability exists in the uninjured distal tibiofibular relationship.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".