Interdependency between corrections in the three anatomic planes in AIS instrumentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A validated patient-specific biomechanical modeling and simulation technique was used to assess the 3D correction of a Lenke-1 AIS case through posterior spinal instrumentation. Uniplanar pedicle screws were bilaterally placed at the 2 proximal, 2 distal, and 3 apical levels. The simulation steps included only the concave side 5.5 mm Cobalt-Chrome rod attachment and its derotation followed by apical vertebral derotation. Eighteen instrumentation simulations were performed with different rod contours (curvatures of 10, 20 and 30 degrees), rod derotation (70, 90 and 110 degrees), and vertebral derotation torques (3 and 5 Nm per screw at the 3 apical levels). Indices in the 3 planes (Cobb angle, thoracic kyphosis, apical vertebral rotation (AVR)) were computed for each simulation. For the eighteen simulations, the coronal plane correction through the concave side rod attachment and derotation was accompanied by an increase of the AVR from 10 to 15 degrees. The increase of thoracic kyphosis was proportional to the preoperative rod curvature and the rod derotation angle. AVR correction through apical vertebral derotation was accompanied by a slight loss of thoracic kyphosis and small improvement of coronal plane correction.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".