MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379509082 · doi:10.1177/23259671231174475

Reliability of MRI Interpretation of Discoid Lateral Meniscus: A Multicenter Study

2023· article· en· W4379509082 on OpenAlexaff
Emily Niu, Matthew D. Milewski, Craig J. Finlayson, Zachary S. Stinson, Elaine Joughin, Jeffrey J. Nepple, Gregory A. Schmale, Jennifer J. Beck

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingMeniscusSurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Discoid lateral meniscus (DLM) has a varied and complex morphology that can be challenging to assess and treat. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is frequently used for diagnosis and surgical planning; however, it is not known whether surgeons are reliable and accurate in their interpretation of MRI findings when defining the pathomorphology of DLM. Hypothesis: Surgeons experienced in treating DLM are able to reliably interpret DLM pathology using MRI. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Knee MRI scans from 44 patients (45 knees) were selected from a pool of surgically treated patients with DLM. Five reviewers (fellowship-trained pediatric sports medicine surgeons) performed independent review of each MRI scan using the PRiSM Discoid Meniscus Classification. Inter- and intraobserver reliability of the rating factors-primary (width, height, presence of peripheral instability or tear) and secondary (location of instability or tear, tear type)-was assessed using the Fleiss κ coefficient, designed for multiple readers with nominal variables (fair reliability, 0.21-0.40; moderate, 0.41-0.60; substantial, 0.61-0.80; excellent, 0.81-1.00). Reliability is reported as κ (95% CI). Results: Interobserver reliability in assessing most primary and secondary characteristics ranged from substantial (meniscal width) to moderate (peripheral instability, anterior instability, posterior instability, and posterior tear). Intraobserver reliability for most characteristics ranged from substantial (peripheral instability, presence of tear, anterior instability, posterior instability, and posterior tear) to moderate (meniscal width, anterior tear, and tear type). Notable exceptions were presence of tear, anterior tear, and tear type-all with fair interobserver reliability. Height had poor interobserver reliability and fair intraobserver reliability. Conclusion: Orthopaedic surgeons reliably interpret MRI scans using the PRiSM Discoid Meniscus Classification for the majority of DLM characteristics but vary in their assessment of height and presence and type of tear. MRI evaluation may be helpful to diagnose discoid by width and identify the presence of instability: 2 major factors in the decision to proceed with surgery. Arthroscopic evaluation should be used in conjunction with MRI findings for complete DLM diagnosis.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207