Embryology of the acetabular labral-chondral complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Damage to and repair of the acetabular labral-chondral complex are areas of clinical interest in the treatment of young adults with pain in the hip and in the prevention of degenerative arthritis of the hip. There are varying theories as to why most acetabular tears are located anterosuperiorly. We have studied the prenatal development of the human acetabular labral-chondral complex in 11 fetal hips, aged from eight weeks of gestation to term. There were consistent differences between the anterior and posterior acetabular labral-chondral complex throughout all ages of gestation. The anterior labrum had a somewhat marginal attachment to the acetabular cartilage with an intra-articular projection. The posterior labrum was attached and continuous with the acetabular cartilage. Anteriorly, the labral-chondral transition zone was sharp and abrupt, but posteriorly it was gradual and interdigitated. The collagen fibres of the anterior labrum were arranged parallel to the labral-chondral junction, but at the posterior labrum they were aligned perpendicular to the junction. We believe that in the anterior labrum the marginal attachment and the orientation of the collagen fibres parallel to the labral-chondral junction may render it more prone to damage than the posterior labrum in which the collagen fibres are anchored in the acetabular cartilage. The anterior intra-articular projection of the labrum should not be considered to be a pathological feature.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".