MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919726158 · doi:10.1097/corr.0000000000000629

Does Cartilage Degenerate in Asymptomatic Hips With Cam Morphology?

2019· article· en· W2919726158 on OpenAlexafffund
George Grammatopoulos, Gerd Melkus, Kawan Rakhra, Paul E. Beaulé

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMicroPort
KeywordsMedicineAsymptomaticFemoroacetabular impingementSubclinical infectionCartilageMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologySurgeryPathologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The management of asymptomatic individuals with cam femoral morphology that predisposes their hips to femoroacetabular impingement has received little attention. Such hips may have subclinical articular damage; however, whether this cartilage damage will progress is unknown as is whether any particular bone morphologies are associated with this progression. Such knowledge could help determine the natural history and guide management of such individuals. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether (1) asymptomatic hips with cam morphology are at risk of further cartilage degeneration (as evaluated by T1ρ); (2) T1ρ changes are predictive of symptom onset; and (3) bony morphologic parameters are associated with T1ρ signal changes. METHODS: In a prospective, longitudinal study, 17 asymptomatic volunteers/hips (16 men; 33 ± 6 years) with cam morphology underwent two T1ρ MRI scans and functional assessment (WOMAC) at recruitment and at 4 years (range, 2-6 years). Volunteers were recruited from a previous study, which reported on the prevalence of cam morphology among asymptomatic individuals using hip MRI; cam morphology was defined as an α angle ≥ 60° anterolaterally and/or ≥ 50.5° anteriorly relative to the neck axis. The differences in T1ρ values (ΔT1ρ) and relative differences (%ΔT1ρ) were calculated as: ΔT1ρ = T1ρFollowup - T1ρInitial and %ΔT1ρ = ΔT1ρ/T1ρInitial. A %ΔT1ρ > 17.6% was considered clinically important. Using CT data, femoral, acetabular, and spinopelvic parameters were measured. Whether ΔT1ρ and/or %ΔT1ρ was associated with any of the bone morphologic parameters was tested using Spearman's correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The global T1ρ in these asymptomatic hips with cam morphology remained unchanged between initial (mean, 35 ± 5 ms) and followup scans (mean, 34 ± 3 ms; p = 0.518). No differences with the numbers available in T1ρ values were seen initially between the anterolateral and posterolateral (34 ± 6 ms versus 33 ± 4 ms; p = 0.734) regions; at followup, T1 values were higher posterolaterally (36 ± 5 ms versus 32 ± 5 ms; p = 0.031). The mean global ΔT1ρ was 1 ± 5 ms (95% confidence interval, -1 to +3 ms) and the mean global %ΔT1ρ was 2% ± 13%. Two volunteers reported lower WOMAC scores; one patient exhibited a clinically important increase in %ΔT1ρ (-26%). The degree of acetabular coverage correlated with %ΔT1ρ (rho = 0.59-0.61, p = 0.002); the lesser the acetabular coverage anterolaterally, the greater the corresponding area's T1ρ at followup. CONCLUSIONS: Although signs of posterolateral joint degeneration were detected, these were not generally associated with symptoms, and only one of the two volunteers with the onset of symptoms had a clinically important increase in %ΔT1ρ. We found that reduced acetabular coverage may increase the likelihood that preclinical cartilage degeneration will arise within 2 to 6 years; thereby reduced acetabular coverage should be considered when stratifying asymptomatic hips at risk of degeneration. Future studies should be performed with a larger cohort and include femoral version among the parameters studied. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicHip disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207