MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Measurement Position Influences Sex Comparisons Of Distal Femoral Cartilage Thickness With Ultrasound Imaging

2024· article· en· W4402663745 on OpenAlexaffabout
Harry S. Battersby, R. Paul Evans, Iwi J. Eghobamien, Derek N. Pamukoff

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltrasoundMedicineUltrasound imagingPosition (finance)CartilageBiomedical engineeringAnatomyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knee position during ultrasound imaging may influence cartilage measurements. Knee loading during gait varies by sex and may contribute to regional differences in cartilage features. PURPOSE: The purpose was to examine (1) the effect of measurement position and sex on femoral cartilage outcomes, and (2) the association between gait biomechanics and cartilage outcomes. METHODS: 25 males and 25 females who were matched by age and BMI participated (Females; Age = 20.6 ± 1.8 years, BMI = 23.2 ± 2.8, Males; Age = 20.6 ± 1.7 years, BMI = 23.5 ± 2.6). Ultrasound measured femoral cartilage thickness and echo-intensity (EI) at 90°, 115°, and 140° of knee flexion and was segmented into medial, central, and lateral regions. Gait outcomes included the external knee adduction and knee flexion moments. Cartilage outcomes were compared using 2(sex) x 3(position) repeated measures ANOVA. Gait and cartilage associations were assessed using stepwise regression. RESULTS: There was sex by measurement position interaction effect on medial (F2-96 = 6.11, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.20) and central cartilage thickness (F2-96 = 9.73, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.17). Males had thicker medial cartilage at 90° than 115° (p = 0.02) and 140° (p < 0.01) and at 115° than 140° (p < 0.01) and had thicker central cartilage at 90° than 115° (p = 0.01) and 140° (p < 0.01) and at 115° than 140° (p < 0.01), but females only had thicker cartilage in the central region at 90° than at 115° (p < 0.01) and 140° (p < 0.01). Cartilage was thicker at 90° compared with 140° across both sexes within all regions (p < 0.01). Males had thicker cartilage than females in all positions (p < 0.01). EI was lower at 90° than 115° (p < 0.01) and 140° (p = 0.01) in the central region and lower at 90° than 115° (p < 0.01) and 140° (p = 0.03) in the lateral region. No association was found between gait and cartilage outcomes (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Imaging position has a larger effect on cartilage features in males compared with females when measured using ultrasound. To comprehensively evaluate cartilage, 3 positions may be needed for males compared to 2 positions for females. Future study designs should consider males have thicker cartilage than females and joint position influences cartilage thickness and EI. Single step gait biomechanics may be insufficient to establish associations between habitual loading and cartilage features. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2022-04804, PI: DN Pamukoff); Western University Strategic Support for NSERC (Proposal ID: 000052849; PI: DN Pamukoff); and Western University Faculty Research Development Fund (Proposal ID: 0000052443; PI: DN Pamukoff).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→