Patients with borderline hip dysplasia present with inferior patient‐reported outcomes compared to true hip dysplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The factors influencing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in individuals with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) remain poorly understood. The aim of this study was to determine the differences in hip-related PROMs in both borderline and true hip dysplasia. Methods: A total of 245 patients with symptomatic DDH were enrolled. Hips were divided into either borderline dysplasia (lateral centre-edge angle [LCEA] 20°-25°) or true dysplasia (LCEA < 20°). PROMs were retrieved from all patients. Linear regression analysis was performed to identify potential factors associated with PROMs. The relationship between PROMs and the characteristic of dysplasia and between patients with DDH and healthy people was assessed. Results: Patients with borderline hip dysplasia had significantly poorer scores compared to true dysplasia on the University of California and Los Angeles activity scale (UCLA), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the Merle d'Aubigné and postel score and the German forgotten joint score (G-FJS). In patients with DDH, all PROMs were significantly lower compared to the control group. In patients with true dysplasia, body mass index (BMI) emerged as the most influential factor affecting the hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score-physical function shortform (HOOS-PS), WOMAC, International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (iHOT-12) and Harris hip score (HHS). In contrast, in patients with borderline dysplasia, radiographic parameters such as anterior wall coverage significantly influenced the WOMAC, iHOT-12, HHS, modified HHS and G-FJS, while the LCEA was associated with UCLA and HOOS-PS scores. Age was identified as a significant predictor in borderline dysplasia. Conclusion: Patients with borderline dysplasia report poorer PROMs compared to true dysplasia, suggesting a distinct clinical and diagnostic burden in this group of patients. Moreover, the increased mechanical load associated with higher BMI appears to play a greater role only in patients with true dysplasia. Level of Evidence: Level III.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".