Sources and quality of literature addressing femoroacetabular impingement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In the last 5 years, there has been an increasing interest in the concepts, pathoanatomy, and management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). The aim of this study was to determine the trends in FAI literature with specific emphasis on the quality and source of publications in the literature. METHODS: A systematic review of two electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE) was conducted to identify FAI-related publications from 2005 to 2010. Studies were included if they were published in peer-review journals and were written in English. Abstracted data included year of publication, study design, type of study, level of evidence, number of patients and hips, gender, weighted mean age of patients, and type of journal. RESULTS: There were 298 relevant studies. Between 2005 and 2010, there was an approximate fivefold increase in the number of FAI-related publications. Most of these studies came from the orthopaedic literature (197 articles or 66 %), while the remainder arose from other medical specialties. The majority of publications consisted of level 4 and 5 studies (248 articles). There were no level 1 studies identified. CONCLUSION: Between 2005 and 2010, there has been a dramatic increase in FAI-related publications, but high-quality studies are still lacking. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".