The Utility of a Community-Based Knee Ultrasound in Detecting Meniscal Tears: A Retrospective Analysis in Comparison with MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: MRI is the gold standard for detecting meniscal tears; however, ultrasound may readily detect meniscal changes, obviating the need for MRI. We aim to (1) determine ultrasound sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy in detecting meniscal changes, and (2) describe characteristic meniscal changes in US and their prevalence. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of knee ultrasound scans for the presence of medial and lateral meniscal tears was conducted. Meniscal changes were characterized into five US appearances (cleft, diminutive, cyst, displaced fragment, and extrusion) by the consensus of two musculoskeletal radiologists. Ultrasound findings were then compared to MRI results. RESULTS: In total, 249 patients were included. Ultrasound sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy for medial meniscal tears were 79%, 97.3%, 95.3%, 86.6%, and 90%, respectively, and for lateral meniscal tears the ultrasound sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 63%, 99.5%, 96%, 93%, and 93.6%, respectively. The false negative and false positive rates for medial meniscal tears were 13.4% and 4.7%, respectively, and for the lateral meniscus, the false negative and false positive rates were 6.7% and 3.8%, respectively. Meniscal clefts were the most prevalent appearance in the medial meniscus followed by extrusions. Meniscal extrusions were the most prevalent appearance in the lateral meniscus followed by clefts. CONCLUSIONS: Community-based US is highly accurate in the detection of meniscal tears when compared with MRI, making it a valuable diagnostic imaging tool for detecting meniscal tears in a community setting where accessibility to MRI is limited or if there are MRI contraindications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".