<i>Editorial Commentary:</i> Indications for Lateral Extra‐Articular Tenodesis in Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lateral extra-articular tenodesis and other anterolateral procedures improve patient outcomes when combined with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Failure rates are >50% lower in young patients at high risk of reinjury. We defined patients at high risk as those aged 14 to 25 years with 2 or more factors of the following criteria: 1) returning to contact pivoting sport, 2) high-grade anterolateral rotatory laxity, as measured by pivot shift test (grade 2 or higher), and 3) generalized ligamentous laxity (Beighton score greater than 4) or knee hyperextension recurvatum of greater than 10°. Other indications may include Segond fracture, chronic anterior cruciate ligament lesion, radiographic lateral femoral notch sign, and lateral coronal plane laxity. A clearer understanding of indications determined by a comprehensive clinical assessment and risk stratification is needed. As indications continue to be "stretched," we need to better understand the role of lateral extra-articular tenodesis and when to employ it in our practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".