Validity of a Quantitative Clinical Measurement Tool of Trunk Posture in Idiopathic Scoliosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Concurrent validity between postural indices obtained from digital photographs (two-dimensional [2D]), surface topography imaging (three-dimensional [3D]), and radiographs. OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of a quantitative clinical postural assessment tool of the trunk based on photographs (2D) as compared to a surface topography system (3D) as well as indices calculated from radiographs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: To monitor progression of scoliosis or change in posture over time in young persons with idiopathic scoliosis (IS), noninvasive and nonionizing methods are recommended. In a clinical setting, posture can be quite easily assessed by calculating key postural indices from photographs. METHODS: Quantitative postural indices of 70 subjects aged 10 to 20 years old with IS (Cobb angle, 15 degrees -60 degrees) were measured from photographs and from 3D trunk surface images taken in the standing position. Shoulder, scapula, trunk list, pelvis, scoliosis, and waist angles indices were calculated with specially designed software. Frontal and sagittal Cobb angles and trunk list were also calculated on radiographs. The Pearson correlation coefficients (r) was used to estimate concurrent validity of the 2D clinical postural tool of the trunk with indices extracted from the 3D system and with those obtained from radiographs. RESULTS: The correlation between 2D and 3D indices was good to excellent for shoulder, pelvis, trunk list, and thoracic scoliosis (0.81>r<0.97; P<0.01) but fair to moderate for thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis, and thoracolumbar or lumbar scoliosis (0.30>r<0.56; P<0.05). The correlation between 2D and radiograph spinal indices was fair to good (-0.33 to -0.80 with Cobb angles and 0.76 for trunk list; P<0.05). CONCLUSION: This tool will facilitate clinical practice by monitoring trunk posture among persons with IS. Further, it may contribute to a reduction in the use of radiographs to monitor scoliosis progression.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".