MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2791752027 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-099169

Why all the fuss about paediatric ACL rupture: isn’t the meniscus much more important?

2018· editorial· en· W2791752027 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Mohtadi, Clare L. Ardern, Lars Engebretsen

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2018
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasketballMedicineLateral meniscusACL injuryKnee painMeniscusAnterolateral ligamentArthroscopyOrthodonticsSurgeryAnterior cruciate ligamentPhysical therapyOsteoarthritisAnterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When Ava, a 13-year-old basketball player, tried to change direction quickly to drive past her opponent, her knee buckled and she developed an acute haemarthrosis. Ava saw a general practitioner and a physiotherapist who advised her to ice her knee and regain her motion. She initially improved, obtained an over-the-counter brace and returned to playing basketball. The full extent of her injury was not recognised. Ava had weekly episodes of knee giving way when playing basketball and stopped playing her favourite sport. She continued to have a feeling of instability, swelling and pain with her daily activities. Four months after her injury, MRI of Ava’s knee confirmed the ACL rupture and a lateral meniscal tear. By the time she had a surgical appointment and an arthroscopy her lateral meniscus was almost absent; nothing separated the lateral femoral condyle and the adjacent tibial plateau (figure 1). We will never know the extent of the original injury to Ava’s lateral meniscus. However, we might suspect that the lack of early and specific recognition of the problem and the subsequent recurrent giving way episodes aggravated meniscal damage. Figure 1 Lateral compartment of the knee with only a small …

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0160.025
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine→Same topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques→French-language works237,207→