Normal variation of infant hip development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims Studies of infant hip development to date have been limited by considering only the changes in appearance of a single ultrasound slice (Graf’s standard plane). We used 3D ultrasound (3DUS) to establish maturation curves of normal infant hip development, quantifying variation by age, sex, side, and anteroposterior location in the hip. Methods We analyzed 3DUS scans of 519 infants (mean age 64 days (6 to 111 days)) presenting at a tertiary children’s hospital for suspicion of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Hips that did not require ultrasound follow-up or treatment were classified as ‘typically developing’. We calculated traditional DDH indices like α angle (αSP), femoral head coverage (FHCSP), and several novel indices from 3DUS like the acetabular contact angle (ACA) and osculating circle radius (OCR) using custom software. Results α angle, FHC, and ACA indices increased and OCR decreased significantly by age in the first four months, mean αSP rose from 62.2° (SD 5.7°) to 67.3° (SD 5.2°) (p < 0.001) in one- to eight- and nine- to 16-week-old infants, respectively. Mean αSP and mean FHCSP were significantly, but only slightly, lower in females than in males. There was no statistically significant difference in DDH indices observed between left and right hip. All 3DUS indices varied significantly between anterior and posterior section of the hip. Mean 3D indices of α angle and FHC were significantly lower anteriorly than posteriorly: αAnt = 58.2° (SD 6.1°), αPost = 63.8° (SD 6.3°) (p < 0.001), FHCAnt = 43.0 (SD 7.4), and FHCPost = 55.4° (SD 11.2°) (p < 0.001). Acetabular rounding measured byOCR indices was significantly greater in the anterior section of the hip (p < 0.001). Conclusion We used 3DUS to show that hip shape and normal growth pattern vary significantly between anterior and posterior regions, by magnitudes similar to age-related changes. This highlights the need for careful selection of the Graf plane during 2D ultrasound examination. Whole-joint evaluation by obtaining either 3DUS or manual ‘sweep’ video images provides more comprehensive DDH assessment. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(11):913–923.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".