The Difference in Supine versus Standing Plain Radiograph of the Knee in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Knee osteoarthritis is a degenerative joint disease attributed to failure in joint repair process. Key aspect of the diagnosis relies on thorough history, along with physical examination and radiology findings. The conventional weight-bearing plain radiograph remains the key modality to determine the severity of the condition and helps to plan the surgery. Nevertheless, not all patients can undergo weight-bearing plain radiographs, especially those who are wheelchair-bound or have severe deformities. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether a weight-bearing plain radiograph of the knee is essential in all patients with knee osteoarthritis. Materials and Methods: A prospective cohort study on patients with knee osteoarthritis receiving treatment in a single tertiary hospital was conducted. All patients consented to participate in this study. Patients were assessed functionally with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and radiologically with plain radiographs. Patients were subjected to undergo both supine and standing plain radiographs of the knee in the same setting for comparison purposes where measurement is done following patient functional outcome and radiological measurement for the patient. Results: Our study shows that reduction in joint space is more obvious in weight-bearing radiographs, however in severe or higher-grade osteoarthritis, a supine radiograph is adequate to diagnose knee osteoarthritis. Conclusion: Standing radiograph of the knee is preferred to a supine knee radiograph wherever possible due to the additional value it brings, however, in certain patient conditions, a supine radiograph is still acceptable.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".