MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013419112 · doi:10.1097/jsa.0b013e318252ea26

Meniscal Repair Using the Inside-Out Suture Technique

2012· review· en· W3013419112 on OpenAlexaff
Donald D. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryMeniscusFibrous jointOrthopedic surgeryArthroscopyBiomechanicsGold standard (test)Dissection (medical)RadiologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Operations to treat meniscal injuries rank among the most frequent procedures performed by orthopedic surgeons. Ongoing research into the natural history, basic science, and biomechanics of meniscal injury has highlighted the importance of preserving the meniscus to maintain normal knee biomechanics and function. The arthroscopic inside-out suture repair is currently the gold standard by which other meniscal repair techniques are judged. Although it is difficult to identify meniscal tears amenable to repair preoperatively, an assessment of patient factors and tear characteristics on the basis of magnetic resonance imaging and intraoperative findings will aid the decision to excise or repair. For successful repair the meniscal tear must have appropriate location and characteristics, without evidence of fraying or degeneration. Repair with the arthroscopic inside-out method affords anatomic reduction of the meniscus tear and allows stimulation of circulation, factors which contribute to healing of the repair. Coupled with careful dissection and needle placement, this method minimizes complications associated with meniscus repair.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Citations35
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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