Appraisal and summary of patellofemoral pain clinical practice guideline.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this commentary was to critically appraise the patellofemoral pain clinical practice guideline published by the Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy in 2019 and to summarize their recommendations for chiropractic practice. METHODS: Quality and reporting of this guideline was assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Three reviewers independently scored between 1-7 (strongly disagree-strongly agree) for 23 items organized into six quality domains. RESULTS: AGREE II quality domain scores ranged between 57%-98%, with overall quality of the recommendation rated 89%. The guideline contained evidence summaries and/or recommendations for three topics: impairment/function-based diagnosis; examination; and interventions. CONCLUSION: Based on its methodological quality, we recommend the use of this guideline for the examination, diagnosis, and management of patellofemoral pain in chiropractic practice. A summary of recommendations from this guideline is presented for use within the scope of chiropractic practice in Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.050 | 0.256 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".