MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560919435 · doi:10.1055/s-0036-1594286

Injectable Corticosteroids: Take Precautions and Use Caution

2016· review· en· W2560919435 on OpenAlexaff
Véronique Freire, Nathalie J. Bureau

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Musculoskeletal Radiology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTenosynovitisCorticosteroidBursitisTendonOsteoarthritisTendinopathyAdverse effectTrigger fingerArthritisSurgeryCarpal tunnel syndromeDiseaseMethylprednisolone acetateInternal medicinePathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corticosteroids are routinely injected into soft tissues, tendon sheaths, bursae, and joints. These anti-inflammatory agents have different potency and solubility, and solubility is inversely correlated with the duration of action. Corticosteroids carry a low risk of complications but commonly cause systemic and local adverse effects. The use of intra-articular corticosteroid injections in the treatment of inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis is well established. Evidence also supports the use of injectable corticosteroids in the treatment of inflammatory tenosynovitis and bursitis associated with rheumatic diseases, trigger finger and de Quervain disease, and carpal tunnel syndrome. The role of corticosteroid injections in the management of rotator cuff disease remains unclear. Strong scientific evidence indicates that corticosteroid injections for lateral epicondylosis worsen the long-term outcomes of patients. This review article discusses the considerations related to the use of corticosteroid injections in the management of nonspinal musculoskeletal conditions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.006

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.314 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations57
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in Musculoskeletal RadiologySame topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207