Medial Meniscal Extrusion Evaluation With Weight‐Bearing Ultrasound
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare medial meniscal extrusion on weight-bearing ultrasound (US) with supine US and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging correlating with meniscal pathology and reported symptoms. METHODS: IRB approved study with informed consent. Patients obtaining routine knee MR imaging for suspected knee pathology were prospectively evaluated with supine and weight-bearing US of the medial meniscus. Meniscal extrusion was measured independently by two fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologists. Correlation was made to presence or absence of meniscal degeneration or tear on MR imaging, as well as reported symptoms. Statistical significance was calculated via intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: Ninety-nine knees from 95 subjects (50 males, 45 females; mean age 45 ± 15 years) were included. Mean medial meniscal extrusion measured at US for a normal meniscus (n = 36) was 0.8 mm when supine, increasing to 1.6 mm on weight-bearing. Mean meniscal extrusion in subjects with mucoid degeneration (n = 20) and those with meniscal tears (n = 43) was 1.6 mm, increasing to 2.3 mm with weight bearing. Inter-reader reliability showed ICC values of 0.853 to 0.940. There was a significant difference in medial meniscal extrusion comparing subjects with a normal medial meniscus at magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and subjects with either meniscal degeneration or tear. There was no significant difference in degree of meniscal extrusion between subjects with meniscal degeneration or tear. There was trend of worsening symptoms and increasing functional limitations moving from normal meniscus to meniscal degeneration to meniscal tear. CONCLUSIONS: A normal meniscus shows lesser mobility between supine and upright position, than a pathologic meniscus. Both mucoid degeneration and meniscal tear demonstrate extrusion in the supine position, which increases with weight-bearing position.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".