Radiographic Measurement of Displacement in Acetabular Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To report methods of measurement of radiographic displacement and radiographic outcomes in acetabular fractures described in the literature. METHODS: A systematic review of the English literature was performed using EMBASE and Medline in August 2014. Inclusion criteria were studies of operatively treated acetabular fractures in adults with acute (<6 weeks) open reduction and internal fixation that reported radiographic outcomes. Exclusion criteria included case series with <10 patients, fractures managed >6 weeks from injury, acute total hip arthroplasty, periprosthetic fractures, time frame of radiographic outcomes not stated, missing radiographic outcome data, and non-English language articles. Basic information collected included journal, author, year published, number of fractures, and fracture types. Specific data collected included radiographic outcome data, method of measuring radiographic displacement, and methods of interpreting or categorizing radiographic outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: The number of reproducible radiographic measurement techniques (2/64) and previously described radiographic interpretation methods (4) were recorded. One radiographic reduction grading criterion (Matta) was used nearly universally in articles that used previously described criteria. Overall, 70% of articles using this criteria documented anatomic reductions. CONCLUSIONS: The current standard of measuring radiographic displacement in publications dealing with acetabulum fractures almost universally lacks basic description, making further scientific rigor, such as testing reproducibility, impossible. Further work is necessary to standardize radiographic measurement techniques, test their reproducibility, and qualify their validity or determine which measurements are important to clinical outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".