Machine Learning–Derived Acetabular Dysplasia and Cam Morphology Are Features of Severe Hip Osteoarthritis: Findings From UK Biobank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The contribution of shape changes to hip osteoarthritis (HOA) remains unclear, as is the extent to which these vary according to HOA severity. In the present study, we used statistical shape modeling (SSM) to evaluate relationships between hip shape and HOA of different severities using UK Biobank DXA images. We performed a cross-sectional study in individuals with left hip dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans. Statistical shape modeling (SSM) was used to quantify hip shape. Radiographic HOA (rHOA) was classified using osteophyte size and number and joint space narrowing. HOA outcomes ranged in severity from moderate (grade 2) to severe (grade ≥3) rHOA, hospital-diagnosed HOA, and subsequent total hip replacement (THR). Confounder-adjusted logistic regression between the top 10 hip shape modes (HSMs) and OA outcomes was performed. Further models adjusted for alpha angle (AA) and lateral center-edge angle (LCEA), reflecting acetabular dysplasia and cam morphology, respectively. Composite HSM figures were produced combining HSMs associated with separate OA outcomes. A total of 40,311 individuals were included (mean 63.7 years, 47.8% male), of whom 5.7% had grade 2 rHOA, 1.7% grade ≥3 rHOA, 1.3% hospital-diagnosed HOA, and 0.6% underwent THR. Composite HSM figures for grade 2 rHOA revealed femoral neck widening, increased acetabular coverage, and enlarged lesser and greater trochanters. In contrast, grade ≥3 rHOA, hospital-diagnosed HOA, and THR were suggestive of cam morphology and reduced acetabular coverage. Associations between HSMs depicting cam morphology and reduced acetabular coverage and more severe HOA were attenuated by AA and LCEA adjustment, respectively. Relationships between hip shape and HOA differed according to severity. Notably, cam morphology and acetabular dysplasia were features of severe HOA, but unrelated to moderate disease, suggesting possible prognostic utility. © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".