Contributions of the anterolateral complex and the anterolateral ligament to rotatory knee stability in the setting of ACL Injury: a roundtable discussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persistent rotatory knee laxity is increasingly recognized as a common finding after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. While the reasons behind rotator knee laxity are multifactorial, the impact of the anterolateral knee structures is significant. As such, substantial focus has been directed toward better understanding these structures, including their anatomy, biomechanics, in vivo function, injury patterns, and the ideal procedures with which to address any rotatory knee laxity that results from damage to these structures. However, the complexity of lateral knee anatomy, varying dissection techniques, differing specimen preparation methods, inconsistent sectioning techniques in biomechanical studies, and confusing terminology have led to discrepancies in published studies on the topic. Furthermore, anatomical and functional descriptions have varied widely. As such, we have assembled a panel of expert surgeons and scientists to discuss the roles of the anterolateral structures in rotatory knee laxity, the healing potential of these structures, the most appropriate procedures to address rotatory knee laxity, and the indications for these procedures. In this round table discussion, KSSTA Editor-in-Chief Professor Jón Karlsson poses a variety of relevant and timely questions, and experts from around the world provide answers based on their personal experiences, scientific study, and interpretations of the literature. Level of evidence V.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".