Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Several risk factors may cause femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Knowledge of causation would identify patients for early intervention, prior to the development of painful intra-articular damage. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and related article reference lists were screened for relevant studies published between January 2000 and December 2013. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria were (1) etiology of FAI, (2) original FAI clinical data, and (3) English language. Case reports of fewer than 3 patients were excluded. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4. RESULTS: In all, 754 studies were screened, with 18 meeting the eligibility criteria. There were 13 comparative observational studies and 5 case series. The studies pertained to intrinsic patient factors (n = 2), activity/developmental factors (n = 8), hip disease (n = 5), postsurgical changes (n = 2), and malunion after hip fracture (n = 1). CONCLUSION: A combination of intrinsic patient and developmental factors, activities involving repetitive hip motion, pediatric hip disease, and hip-related surgical procedures may contribute to the development 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".