The Role of the Ossific Nucleus in the Treatment of Established Hip Dislocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Timing the reduction of a delayed presenting dislocated hip is controversial if the ossific nucleus of the proximal femoral epiphysis is absent. We formulated a decision model for management of 6- to 13-month-old infants based on two strategies: waiting for the ossific nucleus to appear before reducing the hip or immediate reduction. The model included the occurrence of long-term physical disability within a period of 20 years. A literature synthesis provided outcome probabilities. Outcome was measured by utilities derived by content experts. Waiting for the ossific nucleus was the preferred strategy with an expected value of 0.95 as opposed to 0.86 in the immediate reduction strategy. Sensitivity analyses showed the model was robust. Based on the results of decision analysis, reducing a dislocated hip in the presence of the ossific nucleus is likely to be the better strategy if avascular necrosis and long-term disability are considered. The difference between the two strategies is equivalent to one quality-adjusted life year, which is substantial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Decision Analyses, Level II-1. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.007 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".