Diagnosing Femoroacetabular Impingement From Plain Radiographs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) requires careful history and physical examination, as well as an accurate and reliable radiologic evaluation using plain radiographs as a screening modality. Radiographic markers in the diagnosis of FAI are numerous and not fully validated. In particular, reliability in their assessment across health care providers is unclear. PURPOSE: To determine inter- and intraobserver reliability between orthopaedic surgeons and musculoskeletal radiologists. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Six physicians (3 orthopaedic surgeons, 3 musculoskeletal radiologists) independently evaluated a broad spectrum of FAI pathologies across 51 hip radiographs on 2 occasions separated by at least 4 weeks. Reviewers used 8 common criteria to diagnose FAI, including (1) pistol-grip deformity, (2) size of alpha angle, (3) femoral head-neck offset, (4) posterior wall sign abnormality, (5) ischial spine sign abnormality, (6) coxa profunda abnormality, (7) crossover sign abnormality, and (8) acetabular protrusion. Agreement was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: When establishing an FAI diagnosis, there was poor interobserver reliability between the surgeons and radiologists (ICC batch 1 = 0.33; ICC batch 2 = 0.15). In contrast, there was higher interobserver reliability within each specialty, ranging from fair to good (surgeons: ICC batch 1 = 0.72; ICC batch 2 = 0.70 vs radiologists: ICC batch 1 = 0.59; ICC batch 2 = 0.74). Orthopaedic surgeons had the highest interobserver reliability when identifying pistol-grip deformities (ICC = 0.81) or abnormal alpha angles (ICC = 0.81). Similarly, radiologists had the highest agreement for detecting pistol-grip deformities (ICC = 0.75). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that surgeons and radiologists agree among themselves, but there is a need to improve the reliability of radiographic interpretations for FAI between the 2 specialties. The observed degree of low reliability may ultimately lead to missed, delayed, or inappropriate treatments for patients with symptomatic 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 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 | 0.014 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".