What is the pelvic tilt in acetabular dysplasia and does it change following peri-acetabular osteotomy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To quantify the pelvic tilt (PT) in patients with symptomatic acetabular dysplasia and determine if it represents a compensatory mechanism to improve femoral head coverage, we studied a cohort of 16 patients undergoing 32 bilateral staged PAOs for acetabular dysplasia and compared this to a matched cohort of 32 patients undergoing PAO for unilateral acetabular dysplasia all with >1 year follow-up. The change in PT was determined with two validated methods, namely, the sacro-femoral-pubic (SFP) angle and the pubic symphysis to sacroiliac index (PS-SI). Despite an improvement in the lateral centre-edge and Tönnis angles to within normal limits following PAO, patients with unilateral and bilateral acetabular dysplasia have similar PT pre-operatively (8° ± 5°) and post-operatively (9° ± 5°). A change of >5° was observed in only six patients (13%) using the SFP angle, and five patients (10%) using the PS-SI, all increased (posterior rotation of the pelvis). No patients were observed to have a change in PT >10°. The observed PT in our study group is equivalent to that found in the normal population and in patient with symptomatic acetabular retroversion. These findings all suggest that PT is morphological rather than a result of a compensatory mechanism, and even if it was compensatory, it does not appear to reverse significantly following PAO. The target for acetabular reorientation, therefore, remains constant.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".