MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2412627613

Reliability and comparison of acromion assessment techniques on X-ray and magnetic resonance imaging (reliability of acromion assessment techniques).

2005· article· en· W2412627613 on OpenAlex
Darius G. Viskontas, Joy C. MacDermid, Darren Drosdowech, Greg Garvin, Walter Romano, Ken Faber

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder and Clavicle Injuries
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcromionIntraclass correlationMedicineKappaMagnetic resonance imagingReliability (semiconductor)RadiographyNuclear medicineReproducibilityRadiologyCohen's kappaRotator cuffPsychometricsStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability and correlation of plain radiography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the assessment of acromion morphology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Acromion morphology was assessed using the lateral acromion angle (LAA) and the acromion-humeral interval (AHI). Thirty patients who had X-rays and MRI for impingement syndrome were included. Six blinded observers assessed the acromion morphology subjectively and objectively. RESULTS: Neither acromion assessment technique demonstrated a positive correlation (kappa and intraclass coefficient < 0.55) between X-ray and MRI. Both techniques were reliable (kappa and intraclass coefficient > 0.55) when measured objectively by experienced observers. CONCLUSION: The LAA and the AHI are both reliable acromion assessment techniques on X-ray and MRI when measured objectively and by experienced observers.

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.

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)0.002
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 score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.350 · 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