MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408783737 · doi:10.3390/medicina61040562

ACL Reconstruction in Skeletally Immature Athletes: Current Concepts

2025· review· en· W4408783737 on OpenAlexaff
Manish Attri, Riccardo D’Ambrosi, Luca Farinelli, Shahbaz S. Malik, Darren de, Sachin Tapasvi, Christian Fink, Amit Meena

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicina · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAthletesTearsPopulationRehabilitationPhysical therapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ACL injury in skeletally immature patients remains a debatable topic in terms of its management, surgical choices and rehabilitation. The treatment preferences vary across the globe. Children are not little adults in terms of their physiology and anatomy. Hence, contemporary treatment inferred from the adult population does not give the same outcomes in pediatric patients. An in-depth study of specific challenges and difficulties is warranted to optimize the treatment strategies to cater to this group of patients. There is a paucity of literature giving long-term follow-up of ACLR in skeletally immature patients and no standardized guidelines are present for managing this group of patients. The authors have tried to summarize the current concepts for managing ACL injuries in skeletally immature patients through this article. Multiple lacunae and controversies exist in the knowledge regarding the optimum treatment of pediatric patients with ACL injuries who are comparatively more prone to ACL tears than their adult counterparts. Identifying the best mode of management of ACL tears in these skeletally immature patients is necessary. 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.378 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicinaSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207