MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025516769 · doi:10.4236/jasmi.2014.41005

A Method for Measurement of the Hypertrophic First Metatarsal Medial Eminence on Foot Radiographs—A Reliability Study with Surgical Implications

2014· article· en· W2025516769 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul S. Armanasco, Kathy Briffa, Nick Pang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Analytical Sciences Methods and Instrumentation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValgusMedicineFirst metatarsalAnatomyRadiographyOblique caseMetatarsal bonesReliability (semiconductor)OrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: It has been suggested that hypertrophic eminence on the medial head of the first metatarsal is a component of the patho-anatomy of hallux valgus. However, research findings in this area are inconsistent, possibly due to differences in methods in identifying and measuring the medial eminence. To date, reliability of any method of measurement has not been reported. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of measurement of the medial eminence on medial oblique and dorsoplantar radiographs using a previously described geometric technique. Methods: To evaluate the reliability of a method of measurement of the medial eminence of the first metatarsal duplicate standardized dorsoplantar and medial oblique radiographs were taken of one foot of 15 subjects. The feet included both rectus feet and subjects with hallux valgus. The medial eminence was measured on the digital images using Inteleviewer 2.5 (Intelerad medical systems incorporated, Montreal, Quebec) software. Observer 1 measured one randomly selected image from each subject to determine inter-observer reliability. Observer 2 measured all images to determine the overall intraobserver reliability. Reliability was calculated using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). Results: The mean projection of the medial eminence ranged from 0.39 to 0.44 cm in both views. The ICCs were calculated for the dorsoplantar view and the 2 medial oblique view measures between observers. They ranged from 0.76 intra-rater and 0.86 interrater in the dorsoplantar view to 0.80 intra-rater and 0.90 inter-rater in the medial oblique view indicating good reliability in all measures. The average of the 4 oblique views also showed a high level of reliability with a coefficient of 0.96. Conclusions: The medial eminence can be reliably measured in the medial oblique and dorsoplantar view using the described technique. The medial oblique and the dorsoplantar views are valuable and reliable projections for visualising the dorso medial aspect of the first metatarsal.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Analytical Sciences Methods and InstrumentationSame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207