Tendon cross‐sectional area on magnetic resonance imaging and anthropometric characteristics can be used to predict insufficient four‐strand hamstring autograft diameter in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose To evaluate the utility of semitendinosus tendon (ST) and gracilis tendon (GT) cross‐sectional area (CSA) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and anthropometric characteristics in preoperative estimation of graft diameter in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with four‐strand hamstring autografts. Methods Three databases were searched on 29 August 2023. The authors adhered to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses) and R‐AMSTAR (Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review) guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data on demographics, anthropometric characteristics, imaging techniques, tendon CSA, correlation coefficients, sensitivities, specificities, regression models and cutoffs for predicting intraoperative graft diameters above 8 mm were recorded. Results Forty‐six studies comprising 4140 patients were included. Twelve of 19 (63.2%) studies reporting on ST + GT CSA found a moderate to very high correlation with intraoperative graft diameter. Five of 10 (50%) and one of seven (14.3%) studies reporting on ST CSA and GT CSA, respectively, found a moderate to high correlation with intraoperative graft diameter. Cutoffs of ST + GT CSA for predicting graft diameters above 8 mm ranged from 15.8 to 31.2 mm 2 . Nine of 35 (25.7%) studies that reported on height found a moderate to very high correlation with graft diameter. Seven of 33 (21.2%) studies reporting on weight found a moderate correlation with graft diameter. Conclusion Of the MRI parameters assessed, ST + GT CSA was the most reliable predictor of graft diameter. However, cutoffs, sensitivities, and specificities for predicting diameters above 8 mm were highly variable. Anthropometric characteristics in general were less predictive of graft diameter than MRI parameters. This information can be used by clinicians to predict patients at risk for ACLR failure due to insufficient graft size. Level of Evidence Level IV.
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 | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".