Hamstring Autograft Had Better Long-Term Survivorship Than Tibialis Posterior Tendon Allograft for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bottoni CR, Smith EL, Shaha J, Shaha SS, Raybin SG, Tokish JM, Rowles DJ. Autograft versus allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized clinical study with a minimum 10-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2015 Oct;43(10):2501-9. ### Question: In patients having anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, how does hamstring autograft compare with tibialis posterior tendon allograft for long-term outcomes? ### Design: Randomized (allocation concealed), blinded (physical therapist supervising rehabilitation), controlled trial with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up. ### Setting: Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. ### Patients: 99 patients who were ≥18 years of age and had symptomatic ACL deficiency were enrolled. 95% of patients were on active military duty at the time of surgery. Exclusion criteria were multiligamentous injuries, previous knee ligament surgery, or time remaining in Hawaii of <6 months. Follow-up was available for 97 patients (mean age, 29 years; 87% men). ### Intervention: Patients were allocated to ACL reconstruction with hamstring autograft …
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".