Acetabular Morphology and Spinopelvic Characteristics: What Predominantly Determines Functional Acetabular Version?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In addition to the relative size of the acetabular rim and how the pelvis is positioned in space, the plane in which the acetabular version is calculated also affects its measurement. Purpose: To determine the relative contribution of pelvic and acetabular characteristics on morphological version (measured relative to the anterior pelvic plane angle [APPA]) and functional version (measured relative to the horizontal table). Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Included were 50 acetabular dysplasia patients and 109 asymptomatic controls. Using image analysis software, morphological parameters of the pelvis and acetabulum were determined from 2-dimensional computed topography: pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt angle, sacral slope, APPA, morphological and functional acetabular versions, and subtended angles (measure of acetabular rim prominence relative to the femoral head center) around the acetabular clockface in 30° increments. Correlation and multivariable regression analyses were performed with morphological and functional version as dependent variables and spinopelvic and acetabular parameters as independent variables. Results: Morphological version was moderately associated with differences between anterior and posterior subtended angles ( R = 0.68 [ P < .001] and R = 0.57 [ P < .001] for differences at 165° and 15° and 135° and 45°, respectively). Functional version was moderately associated with pelvic tilt angle ( R = 0.56; P <.001) and the difference in subtended angles between anterior and posterior rims ( R = 0.61 [ P < .001] and R = 0.50 [ P < .001] for differences at 165° and 15° and 135° and 45°, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed a good model for predicting morphological version ( R 2 = 0.44; P < .01) and functional version ( R 2 = 0.58; P < .01). Subtended angle difference between 165° and 15° ( B = 0.36 [95% CI, 0.24-0.49]; P < .001) was most strongly related to morphological version, and pelvic tilt angle ( B = 0.57 [95% CI, 0.46-0.68]; P < .001) was most strongly related to functional version. Conclusion: Functional acetabular version was influenced most strongly by pelvic tilt angle rather than the relative prominence of the acetabular rims. Before determining surgical management for version abnormalities, it would be prudent to assess pelvic mobility and characteristics in different functional positions. In patients with minimal pelvic tilt change dynamically, corrective osteotomy would be the treatment of choice to improve functional version.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".