Developmental Dislocation of the Hip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A consecutive series of seventy-six patients (101 hips) underwent primary open reduction, capsulorrha-phy, and innominate osteotomy for late-presenting developmental dislocation of the hip. They were between 1.5 and five years old at the time of surgery, which was done between 1958 and 1965. The present study was designed to re-view the outcome of these patients into middle age. Methods: We located and reviewed the cases of sixty patients (eighty hips), which represents a 79 % rate of follow-up at forty to forty-eight years postoperatively. Nineteen patients (twenty-four hips) had undergone total hip replacement, and three (three hips) had died of unrelated causes. The remaining thirty-eight patients (fifty-three hips) were assessed by the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) and Oxford hip score questionnaires, physical examination, and a standing anteroposterior pelvic radiograph. The radiographs were analyzed to determine the minimum joint space width and the Kellgren and Lawrence score. Accepted indices of hip dysplasia were measured. Results: With use of Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and with the end point defined as total hip replacement, the sur-vival rates at thirty, forty, and forty-five years after the reduction were 99 % (95 % confidence interval, ±2.4%), 86% (95 % confidence interval, ±6.9%), and 54 % (95 % confidence interval, ±16.4%), respectively. The average Oxford hip score and WOMAC score for the surviving hips were 16.8 (range, 0 to 82) and 16.7 (range, 0 to 71), respectively. Of the fifty-one hips for which radiographs were available, thirty-eight demonstrated a minimum joint space width of>2.0
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".