Variations in Calcaneonavicular Morphology Demonstrated with Radiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine and classify radiographically demonstrated variations in calcaneonavicular morphology and to estimate prevalence in a clinically relevant patient population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review was performed of foot radiographs obtained during diagnostic evaluation of 460 consecutive patients who presented to the emergency department with acute foot pain. Variations in calcaneonavicular morphology depicted on the medial oblique view (obtained at a 45 degrees angle) were classified into four groups according to morphologic type (types 1-4), and the prevalence of each type was calculated. Chi2 analysis was used to compare the prevalence of each type in male patients and in female patients. One-way analyses of variance were used to compare mean ages of patients for each type and mean calcaneonavicular gaps for each type. RESULTS: The prevalence of morphologic types 1, 2, and 3 was 94.3%, 2.8%, and 2.8%, respectively. The combined prevalence of types 2 and 3 (calcaneonavicular coalitions produced by synchondrosis and syndesmosis, respectively) was 5.6% (95% CI: 3.5%, 7.8%). There were no patients with type 4 morphology (synostosis). The numbers of male patients and female patients with morphologic types 1-3 were approximately equal (P =.9), and there was no statistically significant correlation between any of these three morphologic types and patient age (P =.2). The calcaneonavicular gap was significantly narrower in types 2 and 3 than in type 1 (P =.01), which was characterized as the normal morphology. CONCLUSION: The general prevalence of calcaneonavicular coalition (synchondrosis and syndesmosis) may be greater than previously reported, but further research is needed to prove the validity of this hypothesis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".