CT Analysis of Hindfoot Alignment in Chronic Lateral Ankle Instability
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A prospective case-control study was performed comparing axial and coronal CT scan images of 11 patients (14 ankles) with chronic lateral instability and 12 controls. Scans were performed in a standardized fashion to simulate weight-bearing. Nine measurements to evaluate the alignment of the hindfoot and forefoot were made on two occasions by two observers. The blinded images were read in order of assigned random number. The angle between the calcaneus and the vertical plane showed a statistically significant difference between patients (6.4 +/- 4 degrees varus from vertical) and controls (2.7 +/- 5 degrees) using unpaired ANOVA (p < 0.01). Intra-observer (R2 = 0.49 +/- 0.19) and interobserver (R2 = 0.71 +/- 0.13) variation showed moderate reliability across all measurements. This study demonstrates a method to evaluate hindfoot varus on CT scan. Many factors have been studied (e.g., proprioception) as the cause for recurrent instability, and this is the first time, to our knowledge, that an anatomic cause has been demonstrated. Although calcaneal osteotomy is clearly not indicated routinely, it may have a role in correcting extreme varus, which may contribute to failed ligament reconstruction in patients with ankle instability.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.007 | 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 it