Assessing the Impact of Pelvic Obliquity in Post-operative Neuromuscular Scoliosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this pilot study was to explore the relationship between pelvic obliquity and patient pain, sitting tolerance, pressure sores, and function. Five neuromuscular patients who underwent spinal surgery 6-26 weeks prior to assessment took part in this on-going study (4F; 1M); age at surgery (14.6 +/- 2.6 years). Pelvic obliquity was measured from pre- and post-operative anterior-posterior radiographs. A force-sensing pad with a grid of sensors was placed on a flat surface and the weight distribution pattern was recorded. The pressures were divided into left and right sides and peak levels were noted on each side. The parents or caregivers completed a questionnaire on their child's pain, sitting tolerance, pressure sores, and functional abilities. Pelvic obliquity was reduced after surgery by approximately 50% depending on the method used to assess pelvic obliquity. The major curve was reduced from 64 degrees(10 degrees) to 39 degrees (10 degrees). Post operatively, the average pressure (left/right side) ranged from 1.2 to 2.0 (average 1.6). The peak pressure ratio ranged from 1.1 to 1.9 (average 1.4). The ratio of left/right pressure correlated with improvement in pelvic obliquity (r2=0.9). Pain was moderate/severe in the 2 patients with the least correction as measured with the Cobb angle from surgery; both improved following surgery. Two patients suffered pressure sores pre-operatively and one post-operatively. Only 3/5 felt sitting endurance had increased. All parents felt their child sat straighter after surgery. The outcome measures of pain, pressure sores, sitting tolerance, and function were not well related to the amount of pelvic obliquity. More candidates and a longer follow-up may shed light on the many relationships.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".