Expectations of Orthopaedic Surgeons to Support Clinical Decision-making from a Radiologist’s Report: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Timely, accurate diagnosis can enable early inception of treatment, and thereby, potentially improve the overall outcome in patients with orthopaedic pathologies. To achieve this, mutual communication and direct consultations between radiologists and orthopaedist are essential. The current scoping review comprehensively assesses the expectations of an orthopaedic surgeon about radiologists and their interpretations of different imaging studies. Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature was performed on three different databases (Google search, PubMed, and Embase) on 19 June 2025, using specific keywords. The manuscripts, which pertained to the topic of interest, were considered. Results: An effective communication strategy between the radiologist and orthopaedic surgeon is critical in order to optimise patient care. The completeness and clarity of information provided by a clinician to the radiologist are essential to ensure appropriate choice of imaging sequences by the radiologists and excellent reporting. The radiologists need to develop specific knowledge and understanding of different orthopaedic pathologies (orthopaedic trauma, sports injuries or ligament/ tendon tears, infections or tumours, spinal pathologies, paediatric orthopaedic scenarios and postoperative complications) in order to provide management-driven reports, which may be of greatest interest to the treating surgeon. Conclusions: The radiologists must be appropriately educated by the clinician regarding the specific reasons underlying the diagnostic demands. Mutual consideration of the patients’ functional status and direct communications between orthopaedic surgeons and radiologists (in the appropriate situations) can substantially improve the treatment strategy and ameliorate the overall outcome in a majority of patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".