MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981073183 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181cabe75

The Association Between Scoliosis Research Society-22 Scores and Scoliosis Severity Changes at a Clinically Relevant Threshold

2010· article· en· W1981073183 on OpenAlexaff
Éric Parent, Daniel Wong, Doug Hill, James Mahood, Marc Moreau, V.J. Raso, Edmond Lou

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaGlenrose Rehabilitation Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScoliosisCobb angleLinear regressionDeformityBayesian multivariate linear regressionMinimal clinically important differencePhysical therapyLinear modelOrthodonticsSurgeryStatisticsRandomized controlled trialMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional correlation study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the threshold in spinal deformity severity measurements beyond which there is a progressive decline in health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The associations between HRQOL and scoliosis deformity measures are at best moderate when assessed using linear regressions. This may be because HRQOL is not affected until a severity threshold is reached. Identifying the thresholds in deformity beyond which HRQOL deteriorates could assist in treatment recommendations. METHODS: The Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire was completed by 101 females with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (age, 15.0 +/- 1.8; largest Cobb angle, 36.9 degrees +/- 14.6 degrees). Radiographs and surface topography were used to quantify the severity of the internal (largest Cobb angle) and external deformity (cosmetic score, decompensation, trunk twist), respectively. Segmented linear regression models were estimated to determine the association between SRS-22 domains and spinal deformity measures. This analysis also identifies deformity thresholds beyond which HRQOL is more affected. The percentage of variance explained (R2) by linear and segmented models were compared (alpha = 0.05) to identify the best models. RESULTS: Cobb angle predicted significantly more variance in all SRS-22 domains except mental health using segmented models (R2: 0.09-0.30) than linear models (R2: 0.02-0.21). Segmented models with a single threshold estimated at a Cobb angle between 43 degrees and 48 degrees predicted between 3% and 11% more variance compared to corresponding linear model using the same variables. Surface topography parameters were not strongly associated with SRS-22 variables with linear and segmented models explaining less than 10% of the variance. CONCLUSION: Deterioration in SRS-22 scores is mildly associated with increases in the severity of the internal deformity. HRQOL is stable until the curve reaches a maximal Cobb angle threshold at approximately 45 degrees where HRQOL declines linearly with increasing internal deformity. The association between HRQOL and scoliosis severity is low, but is better explained by segmented rather than linear models.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations46
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207