Anterior Cruciate Ligament Sizing Tools Can Be Interchanged Without Affecting Graft Diameter Measurement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To determine whether different types of measurement tools can be interchanged without significantly affecting the resulting graft diameter. Methods: Hamstrings (gracilis and semitendinosus) and quadriceps tendons in 33 cadaver knees were harvested. Three different anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft combinations were created using these tendons, making 99 cadaver grafts samples available to measure. The grafts were randomly passed through sizing tubes and a slotted measurement block to determine their diameter. Interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities of measurements were assessed. Pearson correlation test, as well as Bland Altman graph, were used to evaluate the interchangeability of the tools. Results: In 95% of cases, the diameter difference between the tubes and the block measures was less than the 0.5 mm in increment cutoff. Both the intraobserver and interobserver reliability were excellent. Conclusions: This study showed that the ACL graft diameter measurement does not vary whether a slotted block or sizing tube from the same company is used. Clinical Relevance: ACL graft size has an influence on the surgical technique and clinical outcomes. Therefore it is important to have reliable sizing tools.
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 | 0.012 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".