Foot and ankle radiographic angles in a normal saudi population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Radiographic reference lines, angles, and measures comprise the foundation for accurate evaluation and surgical planning of orthopedic surgeries, especially when it comes to foot and ankle deformities. To date, no study has evaluated the average parameters for foot and ankle radiography in the Saudi population. This study aimed to establish reference values of foot and ankle angles for the general Saudi population. Methods: We included 100 participants (200 feet) in this study, with 50 males and 50 females aged 21–30 years. We recruited subjects who had no history of foot or ankle pain, surgery or fracture, no evidence of ligamentous laxity, and no history of systemic disease. Bilateral anterior-posterior (AP) and lateral weight-bearing radiographs were obtained using standardized angles. A total of 19 angles on AP and 9 angles on lateral radiographs were evaluated. Radiographic parameters were compared between genders. Results: A total of 400 radiographs from 200 normal feet were evaluated. The mean ± SD age of the subjects was 22.7±1.7 years. Statistically significant differences in mean radiographic parameters were found between males and females in both radiographic projections. Conclusion: Significant variation exists between the normal foot and ankle reference angles between the Saudi population included in our study and other ethnicities. Moreover, significant differences are found between genders in our study. Considering the lack of other studies involving the Saudi population, the results of this study can help serve as a reference when evaluating Saudi patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".