A New and More Sensitive View for the Detection of Syndesmotic Instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We hypothesize that a single syndesmotic view, capturing both sagittal and coronal tibiofibular displacement, will be more sensitive than a mortise view to detect syndesmotic instability. METHODS: Ten fresh frozen human lower limbs were used to test the new syndesmotic view with simulated syndesmosis injury. The anteroinferior tibiofibular ligament, interosseous membrane, and posteroinferior tibiofibular ligament were sectioned sequentially. At each stage, the syndesmosis was tested using the external rotation stress (ERS) test and lateral stress test (LST). For each stress condition, a true mortise view and the new syndesmotic view were performed. Medial clear space and tibiofibular clear space (TFCS) were measured on a mortise view, and TFCS was measured on a syndesmotic view (TFCS-s). Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare measurements. RESULTS: Syndesmotic view enabled instability detection with a 2-ligament dissection at a mean increase in TFCS-s of 2.37 mm (P = 0.021) and 1.98 mm (P = 0.011), using the ERS and LST, respectively. TFCS on the mortise view was significantly different only with a complete injury. Medial clear space did not vary significantly with injury increments. Sensitivity was 66% and 61% using ERS and LST, respectively, for the TFCS-s, compared with 27% and 33%, respectively, for the TFCS. Specificity was similar for TFCS and TFCS-s. CONCLUSIONS: This study was able to demonstrate that the syndesmotic view is more sensitive than the mortise view in detecting syndesmotic instability in a cadaveric model. It is particularly helpful to uncover instability secondary to an incomplete syndesmosis injury requiring fixation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".