MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2579072066

Delayed diagnosis of an isolated posterolateral corner injury: a case report.

2016· article· en· W2579072066 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Welsh, Christopher DeGraauw, David Whitty

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsHealth PEICanadian Memorial Chiropractic College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationSurgeryPresentation (obstetrics)Physical therapy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Isolated injuries to the posterolateral corner of the knee are a rare and commonly missed injury associated with athletic trauma, motor vehicle accidents, and falls. Delayed or missed diagnoses can negatively impact patient prognosis, contributing to residual instability, chronic pain, and failure of surgical repair to other ligaments. CASE PRESENTATION: A 44-year-old male CrossFit athlete presented with a history of two non-contact hyperextension injuries to his left knee while walking on ice. The only positive finding was the Dial Test at 30 degrees of knee flexion, indicative of an isolated posterolateral corner injury. After a delay in diagnosis, the patient underwent a reconstruction of the posterolateral corner and subsequent rehabilitation. Early recognition of this injury is important as this can affect the prognosis and activities of daily living of the patient. SUMMARY: This case will discuss the clinical presentation, diagnostic procedures, and management of an isolated posterolateral corner injury and highlight the importance of early recognition and referrals from primary contact healthcare practitioners.

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)0.001
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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0100.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207