MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2265289559

Towards Robust Measurement of Pelvic Parameters from AP Radiographs using Articulated 3D Models

2015· article· en· W2265289559 on OpenAlexaff
Moritz Ehlke, Thomas Frenzel, Heiko Ramm, Mohsen Akbari Shandiz, Carolyn Anglin, Stefan Zachow

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Assisted Radiology and Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPelvic tiltRadiographyAcetabulumOrientation (vector space)Gold standard (test)MedicineRadiologyTilt (camera)PelvisSurgical planningOrthodonticsSurgeryMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patient-specific parameters such as the orientation of the acetabulum or pelvic tilt are useful for custom planning for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and for evaluating the outcome of surgical interventions. The gold standard in obtaining pelvic parameters is from three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) imaging. However, this adds time and cost, exposes the patient to a substantial radiation dose, and does not allow for imaging under load (e.g. while the patient is standing). If pelvic parameters could be reliably derived from the standard anteroposterior (AP) radiograph, preoperative planning would be more widespread, and research analyses could be applied to retrospective data, after a postoperative issue is discovered. The goal of this work is to enable robust measurement of two surgical parameters of interest: the tilt of the anterior pelvic plane (APP) and the orientation of the natural acetabulum. We present a computer-aided reconstruction method to determine the APP and natural acetabular orientation from a single, preoperative X-ray. It can easily be extended to obtain other important preoperative and postoperative parameters solely based on a single AP radiograph.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.649

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.131 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Assisted Radiology and SurgerySame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207