Synchronous imaging of pelvic geometry and muscle morphometry: a pilot study of pelvic retroversion using upright MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated feasibility of imaging lumbopelvic musculature and geometry in tandem using upright magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in asymptomatic adults, and explored the effect of pelvic retroversion on lumbopelvic musculature and geometry. Six asymptomatic volunteers were imaged (0.5 T upright MRI) in 4 postures: standing, standing pelvic retroversion, standing 30° flexion, and supine. Measures included muscle morphometry [cross-sectional area (CSA), circularity, radius, and angle] of the gluteus and iliopsoas, and pelvic geometry [pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), sacral slope (SS), L3-S1 lumbar lordosis (LL)] L3-coccyx. With four volunteers repeating postures, and three raters assessing repeatability, there was generally good repeatability [ICC(3,1) 0.80-0.97]. Retroversion had level dependent effects on muscle measures, for example gluteus CSA and circularity increased (up to 22%). Retroversion increased PT, decreased SS, and decreased L3-S1 LL, but did not affect PI. Gluteus CSA and circularity also had level-specific correlations with PT, SS, and L3-S1 LL. Overall, upright MRI of the lumbopelvic musculature is feasible with good reproducibility, and the morphometry of the involved muscles significantly changes with posture. This finding has the potential to be used for clinical consideration in designing and performing future studies with greater number of healthy subjects and 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".