MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4318263706 · doi:10.11124/jbies-22-00175

Application of statistical shape modeling to the human hip joint: a scoping review

2023· review· en· W4318263706 sur OpenAlexafffund
Luke G. Johnson, Sara Bortolussi-Courval, Anjuli Chehil, Emily K. Schaeffer, Colleen Pawliuk, David R. Wilson, Kishore Mulpuri

Notice bibliographique

RevueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2023
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHip disorders and treatments
Établissements canadiensBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Mots-clésJoint (building)Computer scienceEngineeringStructural engineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review was to identify all examples of the application of statistical shape models to the human hip joint, with a focus on applications, population, methodology, and validation. INTRODUCTION: Clinical radiographs are the most common imaging tool for management of hip conditions, but it is unclear whether radiographs can adequately diagnose or predict outcomes of 3D deformity. Statistical shape modeling, a method of describing the variation of a population of shapes using a small number of variables, has been identified as a useful tool to associate 2D images with 3D anatomy. This could allow clinicians and researchers to validate clinical radiographic measures of hip deformity, develop new ones, or predict 3D morphology directly from radiographs. In identifying all previous examples of statistical shape modeling applied to the human hip joint, this review determined the prevalence, strengths, and weaknesses, and identified gaps in the literature. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Participants included any human population. The concept included development or application of statistical shape models based on discrete landmarks and principal component analysis. The context included sources that exclusively modeled the hip joint. Only peer-reviewed original research journal articles were eligible for inclusion. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, IEEE Xplore, Web of Science Core Collection, OCLC PapersFirst, OCLC Proceedings, Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and Google Scholar for sources published in English between 1992 and 2021. Two reviewers screened sources against the inclusion criteria independently and in duplicate. Data were extracted by 2 reviewers using a REDCap form designed to answer the review study questions, and are presented in narrative, tabular, and graphical form. RESULTS: A total of 104 sources were considered eligible based on the inclusion criteria. From these, 122 unique statistical shape models of the human hip were identified based on 86 unique training populations. Models were most often applied as one-off research tools to describe shape in certain populations or to predict outcomes. The demographics of training populations were skewed toward older patients in high-income countries. A mean age between 60 and 79 years was reported in 29 training populations (34%), more than reported in all other age groups combined, and 73 training populations (85%) were reported or inferred to be from Europe and the Americas. Only 4 studies created models in a pediatric population, although 15 articles considered shape variation over time in some way. There were approximately equal numbers of 2D and 3D models. A variety of methods for labeling the training set was observed. Most articles presented some form of validation such as reporting a model's compactness (n = 71), but in-depth validation was rare. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high volume of literature concerning statistical shape models of the human hip, there remains a need for further research in key areas. We identified the lack of models in pediatric populations and low- and middle-income countries as a notable limitation to be addressed in future research.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,754
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,135
Tête enseignante GPT0,442
Écart entre enseignants0,308 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations12
Publié2023
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJBI Evidence SynthesisMême sujetHip disorders and treatmentsTravaux en français237 207