MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386142995 · doi:10.21037/atm-23-87

Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a historical view

2023· review· en· W4386142995 on OpenAlex
Riccardo D’Ambrosi, Amit Meena, Ekjot Singh Arora, Manish Attri, Luise Schäfer, Filippo Migliorini

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Translational Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsFowler Kennedy Sport Medicine ClinicWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnterior cruciate ligamentAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionMedicineOrthodonticsAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Management of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears has continuously evolved since its first description in approximately 170 A.D. by Claudius Galenus of Pergamum and Rome. The initial immobilization using casts was replaced by a variety of surgical and conservative approaches over the past centuries. The first successful case of ACL repair was conducted by Mayo Robson in 1885, suturing cruciate at the femoral site. In the nineteenth century, surgical techniques were focused on restoring knee kinematics and published the first ACL repair. The use of grafts for ACL reconstruction was introduced in 1917 but gained popularity in the late 1900s. The introduction of arthroscopy in the 1980s represented the greatest milestones in the development of ACL surgery, along with the refinements of indications, development of modern strategies, and improvement in rehabilitation methods. Despite the rapid development and multitude of new treatment approaches for ACL injuries in the last 20 years, autografting has remained the treatment of choice. Compared to the initial methods, arthroscopic procedures are mainly performed, and more resistant and safer fixation devices are available. This results in significantly less trauma from the surgery and more satisfactory long-term results. The most commonly used procedures are still patellar tendon or hamstring autograft. Additionally, popular, but less common, is the use of quadriceps tendon (QT) grafts and allografts. In parallel with surgical developments, biological reconstruction focusing on the preservation of ACL remnants through the use of cell culture techniques, partial reconstruction, tissue engineering, and gene therapy has gained popularity. In 2013, Claes reported the discovery of a new ligament [anterolateral ligament (ALL)] in the knee that could completely change the treatment of knee injuries. The intent of these modifications is to significantly improve the primary restriction of rotational laxity of the knee after ACL injury. Kinematic studies have demonstrated that anatomic ACL reconstruction and anterolateral reconstruction are synergistic in controlling pivot displacement. Recently, there has been an increased focus on the application of artificial intelligence and machine learning to improve predictive capability within numerous sectors of medicine, including orthopedic 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.234 · 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