Females Are Not Proportionally Smaller Males: Relationships Between Radius Anthropometrics and Their Sex Differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Distal radius fracture reduction by internal fixation is most commonly achieved using volar locking plates (VLPs). Many standard VLP designs make little point contact with radius anatomy, and most postsurgical complications following fixation are attributed to poor implant fit. Sex differences may require consideration in implant design, as females more commonly require VLP removal. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to determine whether the relationships between measures of radius shape are proportional between the sexes. Methods: Three-dimensional radius bone geometries were created from 40 male and 34 female (mean age = 72.04 years) forearm computed tomographic scans in Mimics (Materialise NV, Leuven, Belgium). Eleven measures of radius shape were collected from each scan. Principal components analysis was performed on these measures to determine which shape variables account for the greatest differences in radius shape among individuals and between the sexes. Results: Principal component scores representing isometric radius size separated the sexes. Six anthropometric measures significantly correlated with isometric radius size for all specimens, whereas 3 and 1 measures significantly correlated with isometric radius size in males and females, respectively. Conclusions: Anthropometrics of male and female radii vary by different proportions. Using anthropometrics from both sexes to create a single implant system may not result in optimal patient fit for either sex.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".