Measurement of knee joint space width with bi-planar radiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this study was to identify whether the joint space width (JSW) of the knee, measured by bi-planar imaging, is reproducible compared to the clinical reference radiography. Our cross-sectional study design included a cohort of uninjured individuals (N = 30, 26.7 ± 5.1 yr) who underwent scanning to determine the short-term precision of the technique, involving repeat scans by bi-planar radiograph. Additionally, repeat conventional tunnel view knee radiographs were used as a comparator. The minimum apparent tibiofemoral JSW was collected for each leg side and compartment for both modalities. The root-mean-square coefficient of variation (RMSCV) and least significant change (LSC) for bi-planar scans (RMSCV = 6.46%, LSC = 1.07 mm) were comparable to conventional radiography (CR) (RMSCV = 7.66%, LSC = 1.15 mm). There was a bias for greater JSW by bi-planar radiography than CR (9.0%, p < .01), particularly for the forward unloaded left leg lateral (15.5%) and medial (17.6%) compartments. In conclusion, we found that JSW measurements from bi-planar scanners are reproducible and comparable to CR. While radiography remains accessible clinically, accurate and precise JSW by bi-planar scanners is feasible provided knee position and alignment are controlled.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".