MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888866674 · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2018.07.004

<i>Editorial Commentary:</i> Imaging of the Anterolateral Ligament of the Knee: The MR(eye) Sees What the Brain Knows…

2018· editorial· en· W2888866674 on OpenAlexaff
Alan Getgood

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2018
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsFowler Kennedy Sport Medicine ClinicWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnterolateral ligamentMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineAnterior cruciate ligamentLigamentAnatomyRadiologyAnterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significant focus has recently been placed on the contribution of the anterolateral ligament (ALL) to controlling anterolateral rotatory laxity of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injured knee. Many recent studies have investigated the use of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound on determining the degree of ALL injury and whether this is correlated to high-grade rotatory laxity. Unfortunately, most studies lack a reference standard, and as such it is challenging to determine whether it truly is the ALL that is injured or if the capsule-osseous layer and deep iliotibial band are involved. Historic literature has demonstrated the importance of these other structures having been noted to be injured at the time of ACL reconstruction. As such, it is clear that high-grade rotatory laxity does not result from an isolated ACL injury. We therefore must remain open to the idea that it is not just the ALL that may cause this injury pattern, and optimal solutions to address this patholaxity have yet to be fully determined.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0230.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.010

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgerySame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207