Parasol Rib Deformity in Hypotonic Neuromuscular Scoliosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of 2 multicenter national databases, Growing Spine Study Group and Chest Wall and Spine Deformity. OBJECTIVE: To derive an objective measure of parasol rib deformity from spine radiographs and to compare efficacy of rib-based (vertical expandable prosthetic titanium rib (VEPTR)) versus spine-based growing rods ("GR") instrumentation to improve parasol rib deformity and pulmonary function. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Children with low tone neuromuscular scoliosis often develop collapse of the rib cage ("parasol rib deformity") that may be associated with poor pulmonary function. METHODS: We compared patients with hypotonic neuromuscular scoliosis treated by VEPTR or GR with greater than 1 year follow-up. Preoperative and final spine radiographs were assessed for parasol rib collapse, spine asymmetry, and thoracic deformity. Multivariable analysis was performed on these measurements to identify the best descriptor of parasol rib deformity. Using this measurement, the ability of VEPTR versus GR to control parasol rib deformity was then compared. Assisted ventilation rating (AVR) at preoperative and final follow-up was compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients treated with VEPTR (average age 6.7 years, average f/u = 3.3 years) were compared with 22 patients treated with GR (average age 7.7 years, average f/u = 2.9 years). The equation Parasol Score = (T6 convex hemithoracic width/T6 concave hemithoracic width) × (T6 thoracic width/T12 thoracic width) was the most accurate descriptor rib collapse (AUC = 0.927). Parasol Score was correlated with AVR. Parasol Score did not change over time for the patients treated with GR, but had a tendency to worsen for patients treated with VEPTR. AVR did not change significantly in either group. Spine deformity was better corrected using GR. CONCLUSION: Parasol rib deformity, measured on x-ray by the metric = (T6 width convex hemithorax/T6 width concave hemithorax)*(T6 thoracic width/T12 thoracic width), did not improve after treatment with VEPTR or GR. AVR did not change significantly in either group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".