Measurement of Fracture Kyphosis with the Oxford Cobbometer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Statistical analysis of 3 techniques for measuring thoracolumbar kyphosis secondary to fracture. OBJECTIVES: To determine the reliability of using an Oxford Cobbometer and assess the most reliable measurement technique. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The reproducibility of Cobb angles for the assessment of saggital plane deformity on spine radiographs has been shown to have significant variability in both intra- and interobserver error. METHODS: Twenty-four lateral spine radiographs of patients with thoracic and lumbar vertebral fractures were measured on 2 separate occasions, in random order, by 4 blinded observers using the same Oxford Cobbometer and ruler. RESULTS: Method 2, the angle from the inferior endplate of the vertebra above the fractured vertebra to the superior endplate of the vertebra below the fractured vertebra, had the greatest intraobserver and interobserver reliabilities (rho = 0.856-0.976 and rho = 0.95, respectively). The other 2 methods had lower reliabilities; however, all 3 methods were well above the statistically acceptable threshold of >0.8, and the intraobserver reliabilities with each observer was 99% overall. These reliabilities supersede results reported previously using the conventional Cobb technique. The absolute mean difference between readings and 95% limit of agreement also improves on previous data, 2 degrees and +/- 5.8 degrees , respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Highest intraclass correlation coefficients were obtained using method 2. Using the Oxford Cobbometer to measure fracture kyphosis has higher reliability than the standard Cobb angle technique. It is easy and quick to use in a clinical setting.
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 | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".