Point of care ultrasound screening, performed by midwives, outperforms standard selective screening for hip dysplasia. A diagnostic accuracy study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate the accuracy of pubo-femoral distance (PFD) ultrasound (US) performed by midwives as a referral criterion for diagnostic Graf hip US, compared to standard screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) in newborns. METHODS: PFD US screening was performed along standard screening for DDH in a prospective cohort. The accuracy of PFD US was compared to the standard referral criteria for diagnostic hip US in terms of sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value in detecting abnormal hips, as well as proportion of abnormal hips found and referral rates. RESULTS: We included 2735 newborns of which 488 received a diagnostic hip US. Mean age at diagnostic US was 35.5 days (±12.8). 317 newborns (11.7 %) were referred by Danish standard screening criteria and 206 newborns (7.6 %) were referred by the PFD criterion. Sensitivities/specificities for detecting ≥Graf type IIc hips were: 50 %/68 % for risk factors, 30 %/94 % for clinical examination, 60 %/62 % for risk factors + clinical examination, and 80 %/89 % for PFD US using a cut-off of 6.2 mm. Difference in sensitivity between PFD and standard screening criteria did not reach statistical significance, but specificity and PPV did. The number of detected ≥ Graf type IIc hips were 6 and 9 for standard screening and PFD screening respectively. INTERPRETATION: Early point-of-care PFD US screening for DDH has significantly higher accuracy in classifying abnormal hips, when compared to standard screening. PFD US increases the detection rate of dysplastic hips (≥ Graf IIc) by 60 % while reducing referral rates.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".