A Method for Measurement of the Hypertrophic First Metatarsal Medial Eminence on Foot Radiographs—A Reliability Study with Surgical Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".