MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965072880 · doi:10.1177/0363546520988114

Comparing the Efficacy of Kneeling Stress Radiographs and Weighted Gravity Stress Radiographs to Assess Posterior Cruciate Ligament Insufficiency

2021· article· en· W2965072880 on OpenAlexaff
Charles L. Holliday, Ryan Martin, John A. Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Sports Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKneelingMedicineRadiographyDisplacement (psychology)OrthodonticsPosterior cruciate ligamentKnee painStress fracturesOsteoarthritisNuclear medicineAnterior cruciate ligamentSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Kneeling posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) stress radiographs are commonly used to evaluate PCL laxity. Patients, however, report significant pain, and the method’s reproducibility may be challenged due to its dependence on patient body weight distribution to produce posterior tibial displacement. Weighted gravity stress radiography may offer better reproducibility and comfort than the kneeling technique, but its efficacy has not been studied. Hypothesis: Weighted gravity PCL stress radiographs will be more comfortable and produce similar measurements of side-to-side difference in posterior tibial displacement when compared with the kneeling technique. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 40 patients with nonoperatively or >6 months postoperatively treated PCL injuries (isolated or multiligamentous) underwent bilateral stress radiographs. Weighted gravity and kneeling stress radiographs were acquired, in random order, for each patient, as well as side-to-side difference in posterior tibial displacement between each knee, patient-reported visual analog scale knee pain (100 mm), time to acquire the images, and patient preference for technique. Paired t tests were used to compare the side-to-side difference, pain score, and time to complete the radiographs. Results: There was no difference between the 2 radiographic methods in the mean side-to-side difference (gravity: 6.45 ± 4.61 mm, kneeling: 6.82 ± 4.60 mm; P = .72), time required to acquire radiographs (kneeling: 307.3 ± 140.5 seconds, gravity: 318.7 ± 151.1 seconds; P = .073), or number of radiographs taken to obtain acceptable images (kneeling: 3.6 ± 1.6, gravity: 3.7 ± 1.7; P = .73). Patients reported significantly less knee pain during the weighted gravity views (kneeling: 31.8 ± 26.6, gravity: 4.0 ± 12.0; P < .0001). Of the patients, 88% preferred the weighted gravity method. Conclusion: Weighted gravity stress radiographs produce similar side-to-side differences in posterior tibial translation compared with the kneeling stress technique, but do not rely on patient weightbearing and provide significantly better patient comfort. Clinicians should therefore consider the use of weighted gravity stress radiographs in clinical practice to minimize the pain associated with stress radiography while allowing for accurate decision making.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207