Severe pincer morphology is associated with incident hip osteoarthritis: prospective individual participant data from 18 935 hips from the World COACH consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between pincer morphology and incident radiographic hip osteoarthritis (RHOA) and study-specific subgroups. METHODS: Hips completely free of RHOA at baseline and with follow-up within 4-8 years were drawn from the World COACH consortium. The lateral centre edge angle (LCEA) was calculated uniformly on all baseline radiographs. Moderate pincer morphology was defined as an LCEA ≥40°, and severe pincer morphology as an LCEA ≥45° in sensitivity analyses. The primary outcome was incident RHOA defined by a harmonised OA score. A logistic regression model with generalised mixed effects with three levels (within-cohort, within-person and within-hip side correlation) adjusted for age, biological sex and body mass index (BMI) was employed. Descriptive statistics are reported for age, biological sex and BMI. RESULTS: 18 935 hips from nine cohorts were included. 4894 hips (25.8%) had moderate pincer morphology. Within 8 years (mean 6.0±1.7 years), 352 hips (1.9%) developed RHOA. Moderate pincer morphology was not associated with RHOA (OR 1.15 (0.92-1.51)), whereas severe pincer morphology was significantly associated (OR 1.50 95% CI 1.05 to 2.15). Moderate pincer morphology in groups aged 40-50 (RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.43 to 4.95) and BMI ≥25 (RR 1.23 95% CI 0.98 to 1.71) had a higher risk compared with non-pincer hips. Women (RR 1.20 95% CI 0.93 to 1.56) with pincer morphology may be more at risk than men (RR 0.95 95% CI 0.57 to 1.58). CONCLUSION: The odds of developing RHOA within 8 years for hips with severe pincer morphology are 1.5 times higher than pincer-free hips, whereas moderate pincer morphology was not significantly associated with RHOA. Further research is necessary to uncover high risk subgroups of pincer morphology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".