Comparison of two methods for measuring the pubococcygeal line from sagittal‐plane magnetic resonance imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The pubococcygeal line (PCL) is an important reference line for determining measures of pelvic organ support on sagittal-plane magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); however, there is no consensus on where to place the posterior point of the PCL. As coccyx movement produced during pelvic floor muscle (PFM) contractions may affect other measures, optimal placement of the posterior point is important. This study compared two methods for measuring the PCL, with different posterior points, on T2-weighted sagittal MRI to determine the effect of coccygeal movement on measures of pelvic organ support in older women. METHODS: MRI of the pelvis was performed in the midsagittal plane, at rest and during PFM contractions, on 47 community-dwelling women 60 and over. The first PCL was measured to the tip of the coccyx (PCLtip) and the second to the sacrococcygeal joint (PCLjnt). Four measures of pelvic organ support were made using each PCL as the reference line: urethrovesical junction height, uterovaginal junction height, M-line and levator plate angle. RESULTS: During the PFM contraction the PCLtip shortened and lifted (P < 0.001); the PCLjnt did not change (P > 0.05). The changes in the four measures of pelvic organ support were smaller when measured relative to the PCLtip as compared to those to the PCLjnt (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Coccyx movement affected the length and position of the PCLtip, which resulted in underestimates of the pelvic-organ lift produced by the PFM contraction. Therefore, we recommend that the PCL be measured to the sacrococcygeal joint and not to the tip of the coccyx.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".