Reliability of Bucholz and Ogden Classification for Osteonecrosis Secondary to Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osteonecrosis is perhaps the most important serious complication after treatment of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). The classification by Bucholz and Ogden has been used most frequently for grading osteonecrosis in this context, but its reliability is not established and unreliability could affect the validity of studies reporting the outcome of treatment. QUESTIONS/PURPOSE: We established the interrater and intrarater reliabilities of this classification and analyzed the frequency and nature of disagreements. METHODS: Three pediatric hip surgeons, a musculoskeletal pediatric radiologist, and three orthopaedic trainees graded 39 radiographs (hips) according to the Bucholz and Ogden classification, blinded to any clinical data. Ratings were repeated after 2 weeks. Interrater reliability and intrarater reliability were determined using the simple kappa statistic. Grading was compared among raters, the nature and frequency of disagreements established, and subgroup analyses performed. RESULTS: Interrater reliability was 0.34 (95% CI = 0.28, 0.40) for all raters, and 0.31 (0.20 to 0.43) for the three surgeons. The best interrater reliability was observed between the radiologist and a surgeon with a kappa of 0.51 (0.30, 0.72). Intrarater reliability estimates ranged from 0.44 to 0.69. Raters disagreed regarding the grade of osteonecrosis in 26 of 39 hips (67%), with seven of 26 disagreements (27%) involving confusion between Grades I and II. CONCLUSIONS: The interrater reliability was lower than expected, considering the raters' experience. Distinguishing between Grades I and II was the most frequently observed problem. We believe that the low reliability was a result of an ambiguous classification scheme rather than the variability among the raters. Outcome studies of DDH based on this classification should be interpreted with caution. We recommend the development of a new classification with better prognostic ability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".