MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969265440 · doi:10.1097/bsd.0b013e3181bb9a3c

A Computer-aided Cobb Angle Measurement Method and its Reliability

2010· article· en· W1969265440 on OpenAlexaff
Junhua Zhang, Edmond Lou, Xinling Shi, Yuanyuan Wang, Douglas L. Hill, James Raso, Lawrence H. Le, Liang Lv

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaGlenrose Rehabilitation Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCobb angleMedicineIntraclass correlationScoliosisRadiographyReproducibilityOrthodonticsVertebraLumbar vertebraeReliability (semiconductor)LumbarMathematicsStatisticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Development of a computer-aided Cobb measurement method and evaluation of its reliability. OBJECTIVES: To reduce the variability of Cobb angle measurement by developing the computer-aided method and to investigate if the developed method is sensitive to observer skill levels or experiences. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Therapeutic decisions for scoliosis heavily rely on the Cobb angle measured from consecutive radiographs. The manual Cobb measurement is subject to human errors. The observer error is 3 to 10 degrees resulted from different end-vertebrae selection and/or manually drawing variable best-fit lines to the endplates of the end-vertebrae. METHODS: A fussy Hough transform technique was used to develop a computer-aided method to detect the vertebral endplates. The Cobb angle, upper end-vertebra, and lower end-vertebra were then measured automatically. The computer-aided method was tested twice by each of 3 observers in 84 posteroanterior radiographs from patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. The intraobserver and interobserver errors were analyzed. RESULTS: Both the intraobserver and interobserver reliability analyses resulted in the intraclass correlation coefficients higher than 0.9 for the Cobb angle. The average intraobserver and interobserver errors were less than 3 degree for the Cobb angle, and less than 0.3 levels for both the upper and lower end-vertebral identification. There were no significant differences in the measurement variability between groups of curve location (thoracic, thoracolumbar, and lumbar), curve direction (right and left), curve magnitude (curves less than 25 degree, between 25 and 45 degrees, and more than 45 degree), and observer experience (experienced observer and inexperienced observers). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the documented results, variability of the Cobb measurement is reduced by using the developed computer-aided method. This method can help orthopedic surgeons measure the Cobb angle more reliably during scoliosis clinics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Spinal Disorders & TechniquesSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207