Acetabular dysplasia and the risk of developing hip osteoarthritis within 4-8 years: An individual participant data meta-analysis of 18,807 hips from the World COACH consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the association between various radiographic definitions of acetabular dysplasia (AD) and incident radiographic hip osteoarthritis (RHOA), and to analyze in subgroups. METHODS: Hips free of RHOA at baseline and with follow-up within 4-8 years were drawn from the World COACH consortium. The Wiberg center edge angle (WCEA), acetabular depth width ratio (ADR), and the modified acetabular index (mAI) were calculated. AD was defined as WCEA≤25°, and for secondary analyses as WCEA≤20°, ADR ≤250, mAI ≥ 13°, and a combination. A logistic regression model with generalized mixed effects with 3 levels adjusted for age, biological sex, and body mass index (BMI) was used. Descriptive statistics stratified by age, biological sex and BMI were reported. RESULTS: A total of 18,807 hips from 9 studies were included. Baseline characteristics: age 61.84 (± 8.32) years, BMI 27.40 (± 4.49) kg/m², 70.1% women. 4766 hips (25.3%) had WCEA≤25°. Within 4-8 years (mean 5.8 ±1.6) follow-up, 378 hips (2.0%) developed incident RHOA. We found an association between AD and RHOA (adjusted OR [aOR] 1.80 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.40-2.34). In secondary analyses, all other definitions of AD were also associated with incident RHOA (aOR ranging from 1.52 95% CI 1.19-1.94 to 1.96 95% CI 1.26-3.02). Descriptive statistics showed that the relative risk (RR) in AD hips to develop RHOA was higher compared to non-AD hips in age group 61-70 (RR 1.70), BMI<25 (RR 1.66), and in female hips (RR 1.73). CONCLUSION: AD was consistently associated with incident RHOA. Explorative analyses show that AD hips in women and age group 61-70 years seem to be more at risk of developing RHOA compared to non-AD hips.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".