Congenital scoliosis in non-identical twins: case reports and literature review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Congenital scoliosis due to vertebral anomalies may occur in less than 0.1% of the population. Several different theories have been put forth in the literature to account for the etiology of congenital scoliosis and the vertebral anomalies which contribute to its development. The study of scoliosis in twins has contributed to the understanding of causative factors including genetics, environment and in utero events during embryologic development. Case reports of fraternal (non-identical) juvenile male twins with congenital scoliosis associated with differing congenital vertebral anomalies are presented. Both children were asymptomatic at the time of the initial consultation and showed no signs of neurologic compromise. Rapidly progressive, severe genetic scoliosis requires prudent observation and referral to a pediatric orthopedic surgeon to determine appropriate options for care and to screen for potentially life threatening disorders. Chiropractors may be seen as gatekeepers for scoliosis and a thorough understanding of appropriate standards of care is required.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".