RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CENTRAL ACETABULAR OSTEOPHYTES AND FEMORAL HEAD ARTICULAR DAMAGE: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present to you a match-controlled study assessing co-existing arthroscopic findings during hip arthroscopy in patients with an intraoperative diagnosis of a central acetabular osteophyte (CAO). We feel that this manuscript is both pertinent and timely. Recent literature has described the entity of central acetabular impingement, in which an osteophyte of the cotyloid fossa impinges against the superomedial femoral head and fovea. The technique for central acetabular decompression has also been described to treat this entity. The primary purpose of this study was to report the prevalence of femoral head articular damage in a matched cohort of patients with and without central acetabular osteophyte (CAO) that was identified during hip arthroscopy. A secondary purpose was to identify the rates of co-existing intraarticular pathology in both patient groups. Intraoperative data was collected prospectively on all patients undergoing hip arthroscopy at our institution between February 2008 to March 2015,. The inclusion criteria for this study were the presence of a CAO identified during hip arthroscopy for a labral tear and/or femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Exclusion criteria were revision surgeries, Tonnis grade 1 and higher, and previous hip conditions such as Legg-Calves-Perthes disease, avascular necrosis, and prior surgical intervention. The matched cohort control group was selected based on gender, age within 5 years, body mass index (BMI), and workers9 compensation claim, on a 1:3 ratio to patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for a labral tear and/or FAI and did not have a CAO. The CAO group consisted of 126 patients, which were matched to 378 patients in the control group. The grades of femoral and acetabular chondral damage were significantly different between the two groups (p This study showed that patients with CAO had a significantly higher prevalence of femoral and acetabular chondral damage, size of articular defects on both surfaces and the prevalence of LT tears compared to matched controls.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".