MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071788185 · doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0627-3

Comparison of MRI Alpha Angle Measurement Planes in Femoroacetabular Impingement

2008· article· en· W2071788185 on OpenAlexaff
Kawan Rakhra, Adnan Sheikh, David J. Allen, Paul E. Beaulé

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFemoroacetabular impingementOblique caseMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingCoronal planeNuclear medicineAnatomyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insufficient femoral head-neck offset is common in femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and reflected by the alpha angle, a validated measurement for quantifying this anatomic deformity in patients with FAI. We compared the alpha angle determined on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) oblique axial plane images with the maximal alpha angle value obtained using radial images. The MRIs of 41 subjects with clinically suspected FAI were reviewed and alpha angle measurements were performed on both oblique axial plane images parallel to the long axis of the femoral neck and radial images obtained using the center of the femoral neck as the axis of rotation. The mean oblique axial plane and mean maximal radial alpha angle values were 53.4 degrees and 70.5 degrees, respectively. In 54% of subjects, the alpha angle was less than 55 degrees on the conventional oblique axial plane image but 55 degrees or greater on the radial plane images. Radial images yielded higher alpha angle values than oblique axial images. Patients with clinically suspected FAI may have a substantial contour abnormality that can be underestimated or missed if only oblique axial plane images are reviewed. Radial plane imaging should be considered in the MRI investigation of FAI.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.305
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 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

Citations264
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicHip disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207