MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783719535 · doi:10.21037/aoj.2018.01.02

Editorial review: American Journal of Sports Medicine “Anatomic Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament of the Knee With or Without Reconstruction of the Anterolateral Ligament”

2018· editorial· en· W2783719535 on OpenAlex
Seper Ekhtiari, Olufemi R. Ayeni

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

VenueAnnals of Joint · 2018
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnterolateral ligamentCadaveric spasmContext (archaeology)AnatomyTibiaMedicineKnee JointCondyleFibulaTubercleAnterior cruciate ligamentSurgeryAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since it was first described (though not named) by Dr. Segond in the context of his eponymous fracture in 1879 (1), the anterolateral ligament (ALL) of the knee has drawn limited attention through the years. More recently, however, there has been a renewed interest in the de nition and study of the ALL (2). While exact descriptions vary between cadaveric studies, it is universally described as originating from the lateral femoral condyle and inserting into the anterolateral part of the proximal tibia, midway between Gerdy’s tubercle and the head of the fibula (3). Biomechanical studies have revealed it to be a stabilizer of the knee joint in internal rotation, with its maximal stabilizing effect seen between 30 and 90 degrees of exion depending on the study (3).

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.289 · 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