MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150784946 · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2009.07.015

The Pattern and Technique in the Clinical Evaluation of the Adult Hip: The Common Physical Examination Tests of Hip Specialists

2010· article· en· W2150784946 on OpenAlexaff
Hal David Martin, Bryan T. Kelly, Michael Leunig, Marc J. Philippon, John C. Clohisy, RobRoy L. Martin, Jon K. Sekiya, Ricardo Pietrobon, Nicholas G. Mohtadi, Thomas Sampson, Marc R. Safran

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupine positionMedicinePhysical examinationStraight leg raisePhysical therapyTest (biology)Range of motionInternal rotationExternal rotationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the technique and tests used in the physical examination of the adult hip performed by multiple clinicians who regularly treat patients with hip problems and identify common physical examination patterns. METHODS: The subjects included 5 men and 6 women with a mean age (+/-SD) of 29.8 +/- 9.4 years. They underwent physical examination of the hip by 6 hip specialists with a strong interest in hip-related problems. All examiners were blind to patient radiographs and diagnoses. Patient examinations were video recorded and reviewed. RESULTS: It was determined that 18 tests were most frequently performed (>or=40%) by the examiners, 3 standing, 11 supine, 3 lateral, and 1 prone. Of the most frequently performed tests, 10 were performed more than 50% of the time. The tests performed in the supine position were as follows: flexion range of motion (ROM) (percentage of use, 98%), flexion internal rotation ROM (98%), flexion external rotation ROM (86%), passive supine rotation test (76%), flexion/adduction/internal rotation test (70%), straight leg raise against resistance test (61%), and flexion/abduction/external rotation test (52%). The tests performed in the standing position were the gait test (86%) and the single-leg stance phase test (77%). The 1 test in the prone position was the femoral anteversion test (58%). CONCLUSIONS: There are variations in the testing that hip specialists perform to examine and evaluate their patients, but there is enough commonality to form the basis to recommend a battery of physical examination maneuvers that should be considered for use in evaluating the hip. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Patients presenting with groin, abdominal, back, and/or hip pain need to have a basic examination to ensure that the hip is not overlooked. A comprehensive physical examination of the hip will benefit the patient and the physician and serve as the foundation for future multicenter clinical studies.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations192
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgerySame topicHip disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207