MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997964257 · doi:10.1097/jsa.0000000000000251

Diagnosing PCL Injuries: History, Physical Examination, Imaging Studies, Arthroscopic Evaluation

2019· review· en· W2997964257 on OpenAlexaff
Fleur V. Verhulst, Peter MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsPan Am Clinic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical examinationPosterior cruciate ligamentMagnetic resonance imagingGold standard (test)ArthroscopyRadiologyLigamentSurgeryAnterior cruciate ligamentKnee painOsteoarthritisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Isolated posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries are uncommon and can be easily missed with physical examination. The purpose of this article is to give an overview of the clinical, diagnostic and arthroscopic evaluation of a PCL injured knee. There are some specific injury mechanisms that can cause a PCL including the dashboard direct anterior blow and hyperflexion mechanisms. During the diagnostic process it is important to distinguish between an isolated or multiligament injury and whether the problem is acute or chronic. Physical examination can be difficult in an acutely injured knee because of pain and swelling, but there are specific functional tests that can indicate a PCL tear. Standard x-ray's and stress views are very useful imaging modalities but magnetic resonance imaging remains the gold standard imaging study for detecting ligament injuries. Every knee scope should be preceded by an examination under anesthesia. Specific arthroscopic findings are indicative of a PCL tear such as the "floppy ACL sign" and the posteromedial drive through sign. History, physical examination and imaging should all be combined to make an accurate diagnosis and initiate appropriate treatment.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSports Medicine and Arthroscopy ReviewSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207