Pelvic Bone Asymmetry in 323 Study Participants Receiving Abdominal CT Scans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of all CT scans of pelvis and abdomen performed at our institution in October and November 2000. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and extent of radiographic pelvic asymmetry in a population of patients not preselected for having low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Pelvic asymmetry refers to asymmetric positioning of landmarks on the two sides of the pelvis and may have a structural or functional etiology. Pelvic asymmetry can be associated with the presence of true leg length discrepancy, lead to false diagnosis or inaccurate measurement of leg length discrepancy, or itself be independently associated with back pain. Although the prevalence of pelvic asymmetry has been reported in patients with back pain to be 24-91%, its prevalence in the general population is not known. METHODS: A total of 323 consecutive CT scans of the pelvis/abdomen were assessed for pelvic asymmetry by one of three examiners. Pelvic asymmetry was defined as an unequal distance from the iliac crests to the acetabuli bilaterally, measured on the anteroposterior scout view of the CT scan. Measurements made on 30 randomly selected scans by the three examiners were used to assess interrater reliability of the measurement method. RESULTS: Pelvic asymmetry ranged in magnitude from -11 mm to 7 mm [right pelvis (mm) - left pelvis (mm)]. Pelvic asymmetry was >5 mm in 17 of 323 (5.3%) and >10 mm in 2 of 323 (0.6%) of the subjects; 172 of 323 (53.3%) had a smaller right hemipelvis (mean asymmetry = -3.0 mm). A total of 95 of 323 (29.4%) had a smaller left hemipelvis (mean asymmetry = 2.1 mm). The intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC(2,1)] between the three observers was high (0.91). CONCLUSION: Pelvic asymmetry of >5 mm was uncommon, with a prevalence of approximately 5% in the population studied. CT scanography was found to be a practical and reliable method for the assessment of suspected pelvic asymmetry.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".