Reliability of clinical diagnosis in intraarticular hip diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the ability of experienced orthopedic surgeons to agree on a diagnosis of labral tear, femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), and capsular laxity using clinical examination. Eight patients under the care of an experienced hip arthroscopist underwent independent clinical evaluations by six orthopedic surgeons who specialized in management hip pain. No attempt was made to regulate the evaluation process as surgeons performed their examination as they would in their own practice. Average subject age was 27 years (19-47 years) with five females and three males. Subjects subsequently underwent arthroscopic surgery by the treating surgeon. Surgical findings were recorded with respect to the presence or absence of a labral tear, FAI, and/or capsular laxity. The percent agreement between the surgical findings and clinical examinations were determined. Surgical findings noted four subjects had a labral tear, five FAI, and three laxity. Based on clinical examination, surgeons agreed 63, 65 and 58% of the time with the surgical diagnosis of labral tear, FAI, and capsular laxity, respectively. The level of agreement did not seem to be dependent on the size or type of labral tear. Also, the ability to detect FAI did not seem to depend on whether the lesion was a cam, pincer, combined cam/pincer or size of the cam lesion. This study offers support that clinical examination techniques used for making a diagnosis needs to be improved and standardized if they are to be useful in diagnosing specific pathologies found with arthroscopic hip surgery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".