Does Femoroacetabular Impingement Contribute to the Development of Hip Osteoarthritis? A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) has been linked to specific patterns of cartilage damage. The goal of this systematic review is to answer the following questions: (1) Does FAI contribute to the development and progression of hip osteoarthritis (OA)? (2) If FAI does contribute to the development and progression of hip OA, does CAM-type or pincer-type impingement play a greater role? A search of the electronic databases, MEDLINE and EMBASE, was performed to identify relevant studies performed between January 1, 2000 and January 1, 2015 that link the pathophysiology of OA to FAI. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed by 2 reviewers using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. An intraclass correlation coefficient with 95% confidence intervals was used to determine agreement between reviewers on quality scores. Overall 35 studies were identified that met inclusion criteria. Certain morphologic features of CAM-type FAI, particularly elevated alpha angle, do seem to predispose select patients to radiographic progression of hip OA. In comparison with pincer-type impingement, the association between CAM-type impingement and hip OA is better understood. Long-term surgical outcome studies will further delineate the role of FAI in the development and progression of hip OA.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".