MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164426083 · doi:10.3390/app11114771

Why Determining the Native Length Change Pattern of Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Is Still a Challenge: State-of-the-Art Review of Potential Sources of Heterogeneity within Studies Evaluating Isometry of MPFL

2021· article· en· W3164426083 on OpenAlexaff
Marcin Mostowy, Katarzyna Kwas, Kacper Ruzik, Magdalena Koźlak, Adam Kwapisz, Eva Brzezinska, Konrad Malinowski, Marcin Domżalski

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedial patellofemoral ligamentMedicineDemographicsOrthodonticsPatellaDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In the literature there are divergent results as to the native MPFL length change pattern. The reason for such divergent results may be the heterogeneity of design of studies analyzing MPFL isometry. The hypothesis of this review was that studies assessing MPFL length change pattern are highly heterogenous. The aim was to present a state-of-the-art review of sources of this heterogeneity. Materials and Methods: A total of 816 records were identified through the initial search of MEDLINE and Scopus databases. After eligibility assessment, 10 original articles and five reviews were included. In the included studies, the following 15 potential sources of heterogeneity were assessed: number of patients/cadavers, age, males to females ratio (demographics), identification of measured fibers, measurement method, measurement precision, quadriceps muscle activity, iliotibial band activity, hamstrings activity (study design), patellar height, trochlear or patellar dysplasia, femoral anteversion, mechanical axis of the limb, tibial tubercle–trochlear groove distance, and condylar anteroposterior dimensions (morphology). Each variable was graded in every included article with 1 point if reported precisely and not introducing bias; or with 0 points if reported not precisely, introducing bias, or not reported at all. Results: Within original articles, the highest achieved score was 10 out of 15 possible points with mean score of 6.7, SD = 2.37, and minimum score of just 3 out of 15 points. In the demographics section, mean score was 2.4, SD = 0.8 (80% of maximum possible score of 3); in the study design section it was 3.1, SD = 1.87 (52% of maximum possible score of 6); and in the morphology section it was 1.5, SD = 1.43 (25% of maximum possible score of 6). Conclusions: There is high heterogeneity and incomplete reporting of potential sources of bias in studies assessing native MPFL length change pattern. Future investigators should be aware of the presented factors and their potential impact on MPFL isometry. All methodologic factors should be meticulously reported. Detailed description of demographic data is already a standard; however, authors should more extensively report variables concerning study design and morphology of patients’ patellofemoral joint. Furthermore, future studies should try to meticulously simulate the real-life working environment of MPFL and ensure usage of proper measurement methods.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0140.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207