MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6925162084 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/e4ypr

Systematic review of the measurement properties of functional performance tests and muscle strength tests in persons with anterior cruciate ligament or meniscal injury

2020· article· en· W6925162084 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnterior cruciate ligamentMuscle strengthMeniscusBiomechanicsKnee JointACL injuryLigament

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary objective of this review is to critically appraise, compare and summarize the quality of the measurement properties of functional performance tests assessing physical function in persons with ACL or meniscus injury. A secondary objective is to critically appraise, compare and summarize the quality of the measurement properties of muscle strength tests assessing knee extensor or flexor muscle strength in persons with ACL or meniscus injury.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.221
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.221
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.010
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)Same topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207