Incidence of hip problems in developmental central hypotonia: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe what is known about hip problems in individuals with developmental central hypotonia. METHOD: Searches were conducted in five databases to October 2023. Down syndrome was excluded from this analysis of less well-known genetic diagnoses. At least two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, read full-text articles, and extracted data. RESULTS: Of 89 full-text articles, 79 met inclusion criteria. Studies included 544 individuals aged 1 month to 63 years with Kabuki, 49, XXXXY, Prader-Willi, PURA, Koolen de Vries, Emanuel, TRPM3, Wolf-Hirschhorn, and other rare syndromes. Most diagnoses may be associated with a combination of differences in hip structure or stability that are evident at birth, or develop in early infancy, with increasing hip dysplasia and subluxation over time. Joint or ligamentous laxity was most reported along with hypotonia and hypermobility as risk factors. Limited data were identified about conservative or surgical intervention and outcomes in these populations. INTERPRETATION: Children with significant hypotonia, with or without a confirmed genetic diagnosis, are at increased risk of hip problems that may be missed with standard neonatal screening. Ultrasound is recommended between 6 weeks and 6 months, and annual orthopaedic review with regular radiographs for older children and adults with significant and persistent hypotonia.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".