DXA-derived hip shape is related to osteoarthritis: findings from in the MrOS cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Statistical shape modelling (SSM) of radiographs has been used to explore relationships between altered joint shape and hip osteoarthritis (OA). We aimed to apply SSM to Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) hip scans, and examine associations between resultant hip shape modes (HSMs), radiographic hip OA (RHOA), and hip pain, in a large population based cohort. METHOD: SSM was performed on baseline hip DXA scans from the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Study. Associations between the top ten HSMs, and prevalent RHOA from pelvic radiographs obtained 4.6 years later, were analysed in 4100 participants. RHOA was defined as Croft score ≥2. Hip pain was based on pain on walking, hip pain on examination, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). RESULTS: The five HSMs associated with RHOA showed features of either pincer- or cam-type deformities. HSM 1 (increased pincer-type deformity) was positively associated with RHOA [1.23 (1.09, 1.39)] [odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI]. HSM 8 (reduced pincer-type deformity) was inversely associated with RHOA [0.79 (0.70, 0.89)]. HSM 10 (increased cam-type deformity) was positively associated with RHOA [1.21 (1.07, 1.37)]. HSM 3 and HSM 4 (reduced cam-type deformity) were inversely associated with RHOA [0.73 (0.65, 0.83) and 0.82 (0.73, 0.93), respectively]. HSM 3 was inversely related to pain on examination [0.84 (0.76, 0.92)] and walking [0.88, (0.81, 0.95)], and to WOMAC score [0.87 (0.80, 0.93)]. CONCLUSIONS: DXA-derived measures of hip shape are associated with RHOA, and to a lesser extent hip pain, possibly reflecting their role in the pathogenesis 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".