Direct visualization of the syndesmosis for evaluation of syndesmotic disruption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Radiologic criteria for syndesmosis instability evaluation remain controversial and direct visualization (DV) of the distal tibiofibular articulation is an alternative diagnostic method worthy of further investigation. We speculate that DV is a more accurate way to evaluate syndesmosis instability than fluoroscopy. The purpose of this study is to determine whether syndesmosis instability can accurately be recognized through DV and if this new intraoperative diagnostic method is more sensitive than fluoroscopy in detecting syndesmosis instability. METHODS: Ten cadaveric ankles were tested using a sequential iatrogenic syndesmosis injury model. Specimens were tested incrementally with the lateral stress test (LST) and the external rotation stress test (ERT). The resulting instability was measured directly and fluoroscopically with a true mortise view by using medial clear space (MCS) and tibiofibular clear space (TFCS). RESULTS: = 0.0077) with the LST and ERT, respectively. Fluoroscopically, TFCS showed a significant diastasis only with a complete syndesmosis rupture while MCS did not show any significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: DV of the syndesmosis in a cadaver injury model appears to be more sensitive than fluoroscopy in identifying injury, especially incomplete syndesmotic disruption.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".