Is osteophyte located in the inferior of the intermeniscal ligament an indication for the surgical treatment of degenerative meniscal tear?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Our study aimed to determine how often the osteophyte located underneath the anterior intermeniscal ligament is observed in patients who underwent arthroscopic surgery due to degenerative meniscal tears, how often this osteophyte can be diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging, and whether this osteophyte could be an indication for the surgery to be performed for degenerative meniscopathy. Methods: Our retrospective study included 47 patients operated for degenerative meniscus tears between 2017 and 2018, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Visual analog scale (VAS), Lysholm knee, and Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) scores were applied to all patients included in the study preoperatively and at the postoperative 3rd, 6th, 12th, and 24th months. The operated patients were grouped into two groups with and without osteophytes beneath the anterior intermeniscal ligament in magnetic resonance imaging (Group A and B). Preoperative and postoperative values of the patients were compared among themselves. Results: The average age of the patients included in our study was 57 (range: 42 to 72) years. Forty (85%) participants were female. Osteophyte was detected in 36.1% (n = 17) of the patients in preoperative magnetic resonance imagings (Group-A). There was a statistically significant difference between preoperative VAS, Lysholm, and WOMET scores and postoperative 3rd, 6th, 12th, and 24th months (p < 0.05). Mean follow-up time was 32 (range: 24 to 60) months. Conclusions: We believe that arthroscopic control of the inferior intermeniscal ligament for the presence of any osteophytes in patients treated surgically for degenerative meniscal tears is one of the main steps of this surgery.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".