Sulcus Angle, Trochlear Depth, and Dejour’s Classification Can Be Reliably Applied To Evaluate Trochlear Dysplasia: A Systematic Review of Radiological Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To summarize data on the reliability of available imaging criteria for the assessment of trochlear dysplasia and to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guideline. Search was performed using major electronic databases from their inception to September 2021. All studies enrolling patients of any age who underwent a radiological exam to rule out features related to trochlear dysplasia were included. After the identification of available imaging criteria, reliability studies were analyzed. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize findings. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Appraisal of Reliability studies checklist. RESULTS: A total of 2391 articles were identified, and 33 articles comprising 3036 patients with a mean age of 28.6 years were included. Thirty different measurements were extracted. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was the most used imaging modalities (21 studies), followed by computed tomography (10 studies), conventional radiology (8 studies) and ultrasonography (US) (1 study). Sulcus angle, trochlear depth, and Dejour's classification were the most explored measurements. Overall, sulcus angle can be reliably assessed on radiography, CT and MRI, whereas trochlear depth can be reliably measured only with CT and MRI. Reliability of Dejour's classification ranged from poor or fair to very good for all imaging modalities. Methodological quality of included studies varied from 2 to 9 positive items out of 11 possible. Twenty-four studies (72.7%) were considered at high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Trochlear dysplasia can be reliably evaluated at least with 3 measurements: sulcus angle, trochlear depth and Dejour's classification. Methodological quality assessment showed high risk of bias in most included studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level II-III studies.
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 | 0.032 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".