MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060977697 · doi:10.1055/s-0033-1348091

Imaging of the Acetabular Labrum

2013· review· en· W2060977697 on OpenAlexaff
James D. Thomas, Zhi Li, Anne Agur, Philip Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Musculoskeletal Radiology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersRoyal College of Radiologists
KeywordsFemoroacetabular impingementMedicineLabrumAcetabular labrumMicrotraumaHip arthroscopyTearsSurgeryArthroscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evaluation and proposed relevance of acetabular labral tears has rapidly evolved over the last decade due to the recognition of femoroacetabular impingement, an increase in the number of surgical options, and improved imaging of the hip with MR arthrography and 3-T MR protocols. The acetabular labrum, stabilizing the hip joint, provides a seal, enhancing fluid lubrication, maintains synovial pressure, and prevents direct contact of the articular surfaces. The labrum takes on a weightbearing role at the extremes of motion with excessive forces seen in a great number of athletic activities thought to contribute to tearing. Approximately 25% of labral tears are not associated with any specific injury or traumatic event with the underlying etiology thought to be repetitive microtrauma. This article reviews the anatomy of the acetabular labrum and discusses the five most commonly occurring etiologies of labral tears: trauma, femoroacetabular impingement, hip hypermobility, dysplasia, and degeneration. We also review the surgical and MR classification of labral tears and describe potential pitfalls in image interpretation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in Musculoskeletal RadiologySame topicHip disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207