Acetabular dysplasia and the risk of developing hip osteoarthritis at 2,5,8, and 10 years follow-up in a prospective nationwide cohort study (CHECK).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between acetabular dysplasia (AD) and the risk of incident and end-stage radiographic hip osteoarthritis (RHOA) over 2,5,8 and 10 years. DESIGN: Individuals (n = 1002) aged between 45 and 65 from the prospective Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee (CHECK) were studied. Anteroposterior pelvic radiographs were obtained at baseline and 2,5,8, and 10-years follow-up. False profile radiographs were obtained at baseline. AD was defined as a lateral center edge angle, an anterior center edge angle, or both <25° at baseline. The risk of developing RHOA was determined at each follow-up moment. Incident RHOA was defined by Kellgren & Lawrence (KL) grade ≥2 or total hip replacement (THR), end-stage RHOA by a KL grade ≥3 or THR. Associations were expressed in odds ratios (OR) using logistic regression with generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: AD was associated with the development of incident RHOA at 2 years follow-up (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.00-6.04), 5 years follow-up (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.20-4.31), and 8 years follow-up (OR 1.86, 95%CI 1.22-2.83). AD was only associated with end-stage RHOA at 5 years follow-up (OR 3.75, 95% CI 1.02-13.77). No statistically significant associations were observed between AD and RHOA at 10-years follow-up. CONCLUSION: Baseline AD in individuals between 45 and 65 years is associated with an increased risk of developing RHOA within 2- and 5 years. However, this association seems to weaken after 8 years and disappears after 10 years.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".