Can Views of the Proximal Femur Be Reliably Used to Predict Malrotation After Femoral Nail Insertion? A Cadaver Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We investigated the relationship between the size of the lesser trochanter visualized on an AP view of the hip and femoral rotation after femoral shaft fracture fixation. We hypothesized that the amount of the lesser trochanter visualized can accurately detect differences in femoral shaft rotation. METHODS: Sequential fluoroscopic images of 19 matched pairs of cadaver femora were obtained of the proximal femur at 10° increments of internal and external rotation. The relationship between the percentage of the lesser trochanter and the angle of femoral rotation was assessed by regression analysis. RESULTS: Rotation of the proximal femur follows a relatively linear relationship centered around the neutral rotation position. A 10% change in the lesser trochanter size corresponds to approximately 7° of femoral rotation. CONCLUSION: The relationship between the size of the lesser trochanter visualized and the degree of femoral rotation after femoral shaft fracture fixation is approximately linear and sensitive to relatively small changes in rotation, making it potentially useful for assessing malrotation after femoral shaft fracture fixation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".