Correlation between quantity and quality of orthosis wear and treatment outcomes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Orthotic treatment is the most commonly used non-surgical treatment method for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). This study determined whether treatment outcome correlates with how often and how well children with AIS wear their orthoses. Eighteen (18) subjects (3M, 15F) who were diagnosed with idiopathic scoliosis and had worn their orthoses from 6 months up to 1 year participated in this study. All subjects were prescribed Boston braces to be worn full time (23 hrs/day). Twelve (12) subjects who completed their brace treatment were included in the data analysis. Three (3) treatment outcomes were classified as improvement, no change and deterioration. The quality of the brace wear was assessed by how often the brace was worn with zero force, below 80%, between 80 to 120%, and above 120% of the load level prescribed in the clinic. The quantity of brace wear was determined by how many hours per day they wore their brace. Subjects who wear their braces tighter and for more hours per day seem to have better outcomes.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".