MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gait Abnormalities Following Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis

2004· article· en· W2017766086 on OpenAlexaff
Kit M. Song, Suzanne Halliday, Chris Reilly, William Keezel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSlipped capital femoral epiphysisGaitTrunkKinematicsAnkleOrthodonticsRange of motionGait analysisPhysical medicine and rehabilitationFemoral headAnatomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors evaluated 30 subjects with treated unilateral slipped capital femoral epiphysis and a range of severity from mild to severe to characterize gait and strength abnormalities using instrumented three-dimensional gait analysis and isokinetic muscle testing. For slip angles less than 30 degrees, kinematic, kinetic, and strength variables were not significantly different from age- and weight-matched controls. For moderate to severe slips, as slip angle increased, passive hip flexion, hip abduction, and internal rotation in the flexed and extended positions decreased significantly. Persistent pelvic obliquity, medial lateral trunk sway, and trunk obliquity in stance increased, as did extension, adduction, and external rotation during gait. Gait velocity and step length decreased with increased amount of time spent in double limb stance. Hip abductor moment, hip extension moment, knee flexion moment, and ankle dorsiflexion moment were all decreased on the involved side. Hip and knee strength also decreased with increasing slip severity. All of these changes were present on the affected and to a lesser degree the unaffected side. Body center of mass translation or pelvic obliquity in mid-stance greater than one standard deviation above normal correlated well with the impression of compensated or uncompensated Trendelenburg gait.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric OrthopaedicsSame topicHip disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207