Measuring Lateral Screw Protuberance Is a Clinically Accurate Method for Quantifying Femoral Neck Shortening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to compare the reliability and accuracy of the screw protuberance method (SPM) and overlay method (OM) for measuring femoral neck shortening on anterior-posterior (AP) radiographs. The secondary aim is to investigate the changes in reliability and accuracy with varying femoral rotation. METHODS: Radio-opaque femur sawbone models were fitted with either 3 cancellous screws or a sliding hip screw implant. Anterior-posterior radiographs were obtained using C-arm fluoroscopy with femoral neck shortening up to 15 mm and with the femoral shaft in 30 degrees of internal rotation to 30 degrees of external rotation (ER). Four observers measured femoral neck shortening at 2 time points. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability were calculated using the intraclass coefficient. Accuracy was analyzed through a Bland-Altman agreement statistic stratified by femoral rotation. RESULTS: Both measurement techniques displayed excellent reliability, regardless of femoral rotation or implant. There was a significant difference in femoral neck shortening measurements with rotation for both the OM (P < 0.001) and SPM (P < 0.001). Both methods are accurate within 1 mm of the actual magnitude of shortening from 30-degree internal rotation to 15-degree ER. At 30-degree ER, shortening was underestimated by -2.10 mm using the OM (95% confidence interval, -2.43 to -1.76; P < 0.01) and by -1.64 mm using the SPM (95% confidence interval, -1.83 to -1.45; P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that both the OM and SPM are accurate and reliable assessments for femoral neck shortening; however, both methods are sensitive to extreme ER. Given the simplicity of the SPM technique, it may have increased utility for pragmatic research studies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".