Level of clinical evidence presented at the International Society for Hip Arthroscopy Annual Scientific Meeting over 5 years (2010–2014)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Society for Hip Arthroscopy (ISHA) Annual Scientific Meeting is at the forefront of informing today's orthopaedic surgeons and society of the rapid advances in the exponentially growing field of hip arthroscopy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and observe any trends in the level of clinical evidence in the papers and posters presented at the ISHA Annual Scientific Meeting from 2010 to 2014. The online abstracts of the paper and poster presentations presented at the ISHA Annual Scientific Meetings were independently evaluated by two reviewers (582 total resulting presentations). Two reviewers screened these results for clinical studies and graded the quality of evidence from level I (i.e. randomized trials) to IV (i.e. case series) based on the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons classification system. Four hundred and twenty-eight presentations met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. Overall, 10.1% of the presentations were level I, 12.8% were level II, 30.1% were level III and 47.0% were level IV evidence. Over time, from 2010 to 2014, we observed an increase in the percentage of level II paper presentations, an increase in the proportion of level III poster presentations, and a decrease in the proportion of both level IV paper and poster presentations. Significant non-random improvement in the level of evidence presented was noted for the poster presentations (P = 0.012) but not for the paper presentations (P = 0.61) over the study period. Statistical trends demonstrate ISHA's increased awareness and commitment to presenting higher quality evidence as the availability of this evidence increases.
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 | 0.017 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.100 | 0.026 |
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".