MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1821713289 · doi:10.13034/jsst.v8i2.74

A Review of Adult Idiopathic and Degenerative Scoliosis

2015· review· en· W1821713289 on OpenAlex
Fatima Sheikh

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Student Science and Technology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScoliosisMedicineIdiopathic scoliosisQuality of life (healthcare)DeformitySpinal deformitySurgeryPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adult scoliosis can be classified into two groups, either degenerative scoliosis or idiopathic scoliosis. These two types of scoliosis vary in patient age, progression, and physical presentation. In adult idiopathic scoliosis, spurs form as a result of the onset of arthritis in the joints of the spine, resulting in back pain and in many cases deformity. On the other hand, in adult degenerative scoliosis, the degeneration of discs can lead to numbness and shooting pains that radiate down the leg. It is for this reason that surgical methods must be carefully weighed and considered to account for the major symptoms to prevent postoperative complications. With improvements in surgical treatments, more attention should be paid to improving the patient’s quality of life as a part of the follow up procedures. Ultimately, once a diagnosis has been reached, based on the symptoms and any other illnesses, all aspects of the treatment should be considered in order to prevent postoperative complications, to relieve symptoms and to improve overall quality of life. A variety of papers and studies were thoroughly reviewed and studied before writing this review paper, including “Evaluation of quality of life and risk factors affecting quality go life in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis” and “Surgical Treatment of Adult Degenerative Scoliosis”.La scoliose — plus spécifiquement la scoliose adulte — peut être classée en deux catégories, soit la scoliose adulte dégénérative ou la scoliose adulte idiopathique. Ces deux types de scoliose varient en fonction de l'âge du patient, la progression, et la représentation physique. Dans la scoliose adulte idiopathique, la formation d’éperons survient à cause de l’arthrite dans les articulations de la colonne vertébrale ce qui entraîne des douleurs au dos et dans de nombreux cas, une difformité. D'autre part, dans la scoliose adulte dégénérative, la dégénérescence des disques peut engendrer un engourdissement et des douleurs fulgurantes qui irradient jusqu’au bas de la jambe. C’est pour cela que les méthodes chirurgicales doivent être mûrement réfléchies et dûment évaluées pour tenir compte des principaux symptômes afin de prévenir les complications postopératoires. Avec le progrès des traitements chirurgicaux, plus d'attention devrait être accordée à l'amélioration de la qualité de vie du patient dans les procédures de suivi. En fin de compte, une fois que le diagnostic a été déterminé, les symptômes et tout autres maladies, ainsi que tous les aspects du traitement doivent être envisagés afin de prévenir les complications postopératoires, soulager les symptômes et améliorer la qualité de vie globale.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it