The Accuracy of the Use of Functional Hip Motions on Localization of the Center of the Hip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The hip joint is generally considered a ball-and-socket joint, the center of which is used as an anatomic landmark in functional analyses and by surgical navigation systems. The location of the hip center has been estimated using functional techniques using various limb motions. However, it is not clear which specific motions best predicted the functional center. PURPOSE: This study aims to compare the predicted functional center of the hip evaluated from multiplanar circumduction and star motions, and to compare this functional center with the geometric center. METHODS: Eight hips in four fresh-frozen cadavers were used and verified as morphologically normal in CT scans. Three-dimensional motion of each lower limb was recorded using arrays of reflective markers rigidly attached to the femur and pelvis. Each hip was manipulated to produce circumduction or star motion, i.e., abduction-adduction and flexion extension. The hip was then dissected and the bearing surface traced with a probe, from which a best-fit sphere was calculated. The functional center was calculated from the motion data and compared to the geometric technique. RESULTS: There was no difference between the functional hip center predicted by circumduction or star motions, although this was offset from the geometric hip center by up to 14 mm. For all except two hips, the functional center was less than 6 mm from the geometric hip in each anatomic direction. Test-retest differences were smaller for circumduction than for star motions. CONCLUSIONS: Estimation of the hip center based on motion of the femur relative to the pelvis could localize the geometric center of the joint within 14 mm and circumduction motions were more repeatable. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Many surgical navigation systems make use of the functional hip center as a landmark for alignment or reconstruction. Errors associated with this would have a very minor influence in lower limb alignment, e.g., for knee reconstruction, but could affect proximal femoral geometry relevant to hip reconstruction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".