MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2593094152

HOW DOES THE DGEMRIC INDEX CHANGE AFTER SURGICAL TREATMENT FOR FAI? PRELIMINARY DATA OF A PROSPECTIVE COMPARATIVE LONGITUDINAL SINGLE-CENTRE STUDY

2018· article· en· W2593094152 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Florian Schmaranzer, Pascal C. Haefeli, Markus S. Hanke, Till D. Lerch, Moritz Tannast, Klaus A. Siebenrock

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFemoroacetabular impingementOsteoarthritisCartilageCartilage damageWOMACRadiographyProspective cohort studySurgeryRadiologyNuclear medicineArticular cartilage
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Delayed gadolinium enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC) is a novel MRI-based technique with intravenous contrast agent that allows an objective quantification of biochemical cartilage properties. It enables a ‘monitoring' of the loss of cartilage glycosaminoglycan content which ultimately leads to osteoarthritis. Data regarding the longitudinal change of cartilage property after joint preserving hip surgery is sparse. We asked (1) if and how the dGEMRIC-index changes in patients undergoing open/arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) one year postoperatively compared to a control group of patients with non-operative treatment; (2) and if a change correlates with the clinical short term outcome. Methods IRB-approved prospective comparative longitudinal study of two groups involving a total of 61 hips in 55 symptomatic patients with FAI. The ‘operative' group consisted of patients that underwent open/arthroscopic treatment of their pathomorphology. The ‘non-operative' group consisted of conservatively treated patients. Groups were comparable for preoperative radiographic arthritis (Tonnis score), preoperative HOOS- and WOMAC-scores and baseline dGEMRIC indices. All patients eligible for evaluation had preoperative radiographs and dGEMRIC scans at baseline and repeated dGEMRIC scans using the same scanner and protocol. (1) dGEMRIC indices of femoral and acetabular cartilage were assessed separately on the initial and follow-up dGEMRIC scans. Radial images were reformatted from a 3D T1 map for measurements. Regions of interest were placed manually peripherally and centrally within the cartilage based on anatomical landmarks at the 12 ‘hour' position of the clcok-face with the help of radial high-resolution PD-weighted MR images. (2) Patient-reported outcome was evaluated at baseline and at 1 year follow-up: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS). Statistical analysis included Student's t-Tests, Mann-Whitney U-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (p<0.05). 1. On the acetabular side, the dGEMRIC index decreased significantly (p<0.05) in 17/20 (85%) zones respectively in 21/24 (88%) of femoral zones in the operated group [Fig. 1]. In the non-operative group, no acetabular zone and 2/24 (8%) femoral zones presented with a significant drop [Fig. 2]. 2. After one year the WOMAC and the HOOS scores significantly improved (58±42 to 33±42; p= 0.007 respectively 63±16 to 74±18; p= 0.028) for the operative group, while there was no change (55±45 to 48±50; p= 0.825 respectively 63±14 to 66±19; p= 0.816) for the non-operative group. Discussion Interestingly joint-preserving surgery for FAI led to a decline in biochemical cartilage properties on MRI at a one year follow-up despite the significant improvement of patient outcome. This short-term phenomenon was described after periacetabular osteotomy for correction of hip dysplasia in literature with a normalization of the dGEMRIC values at 2 years.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.246
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.086 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity→French-language works237,207→