MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6944036496 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/29qz5

Determining meaningful thresholds for patient-reported outcomes following interventions for anterior cruciate ligament or meniscus injury: A systematic review

2020· article· en· W6944036496 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 ligamentMeniscusPsychological interventionSystematic reviewAnterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesMEDLINEMedial meniscus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This systematic review aims to (i) identify all published PROMs where thresholds were measured with the aim of defining meaningful outcomes in individuals who have experienced an ACL or meniscus injury; and (ii) synthesize the literature to provide estimates for thresholds defining meaningful outcomes in these PROMs, in individuals who ruptured their ACL or sustained a meniscal 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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.250
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.250
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.018
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.307 · 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