MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3098933174 · doi:10.11124/jbies-20-00069

Application of statistical shape modeling to the human hip joint: a scoping review protocol

2020· review· en· W3098933174 on OpenAlexaff
Luke G. Johnson, Colleen Pawliuk

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)Joint (building)Computer scienceEngineeringMedicineStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This review aims to identify all examples of the application of statistical shape models to the human hip joint, with a focus on methodology, validation, and applications. INTRODUCTION: Abnormal hip joint morphology (eg, deformity secondary to Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease) is an important precursor to osteoarthritis. Clinical radiographs are often used to characterize deformity and provide indication for surgical correction, but it is unclear whether radiographs can adequately describe three-dimensional deformity. Statistical shape modeling, a method of describing a population of shapes using a small number of variables, has been identified as a potential tool that will allow clinicians and researchers to validate current and novel radiographic measurements of hip deformity. In identifying all previous examples of statistical shape modeling applied to the hip joint, this review will determine its prevalence, strengths, and weaknesses, and identify gaps in the literature. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed and gray literature focusing on the development and/or application of statistical shape models to the human hip joint will be included. METHODS: Several relevant databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and IEEE, will be searched for literature published from 1992, and for a title and abstract that can be searched in English. After removal of duplicates, two reviewers will independently screen papers by title and abstract, then screen the full text of selected or uncertain papers. The same reviewers will then independently chart data from the final selection. At each stage, disagreements will be resolved through discussion or third-party arbitration.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicHip disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207