Modification of Distal Tibiofibular Relationship After a Mild Syndesmotic Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The hypothesis of this study is that a sprain or tear of 1 or more of the 3 syndesmotic ligaments will result in a significant change in the osseous anatomy relationship when comparing injured to uninjured syndesmosis. Our secondary objective was to determine whether injuries to the syndesmosis as diagnosed on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could be found using static imaging. METHODS: This is a descriptive radiological study of ankle MRI reports over a 12-year period, from 2 different institutions, and divided in two groups: normal and injured syndesmotic ligaments. A series of 6 lengths and 2 angles were measured on MRI axial views that describe the rotation, lateral, and anteroposterior translational relation between the distal tibia and fibula. Parameters from injured and uninjured ankles were compared using Student's t-test. RESULTS: Fifty uninjured syndesmosis were compared to 64 injured syndesmoses. The majority of syndesmosis injuries concerned either an anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament sprain or tear. There was a significant difference in the anatomic position of the tibia and the fibula between injured and uninjured syndesmosis. CONCLUSIONS: The anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament is the most commonly injured ligament in the syndesmosis in sports injury and results in subtle variations in the syndesmotic anatomy, which plain radiographs cannot assess. Because of the previously validated computed tomography scan measurement, this study demonstrates a potential to identify syndesmotic injury on other more accessible imaging modalities, such as computed tomography scan, by using a well-defined measurement system. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic, Level III : Retrospective, Radiologic Study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".