Analysis of L5 Incidence in Normal Population Use of L5 Incidence as a Guide in Reconstruction of Lumbosacral Alignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: To establish a statistic model defining the relationship between L5 incidence (L5I) and pelvic incidence (PI) in normal population and to illustrate the importance of L5I in maintaining the normal sagittal profile of spine. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: L5I was proposed for the evaluation of postoperative improvements in high-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. It has been proven that a postoperative improvement in L5I was correlated with a better surgical outcome, indicating that the restoration of L5I is important in restoring normal sagittal balance and spinal morphology. METHODS: This retrospective study recruited 138 healthy volunteers, who were stratified into 2 groups according to age: adolescent group (13-18 yr) and adult group (19-35 yr). Parameters including PI, pelvic tilt, sacral slope, lumbar lordosis (LL), upper arc of the LL, lower arc of the LL, L5I, lumbosacral angle, and height of L5-S1 disc were measured on the long-cassette standing upright lateral radiographs of the spine and pelvis. The relations between all parameters were determined via the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). Linear regression was applied to model the relationship between PI and L5I. RESULTS: This study demonstrated significant correlation between L5I and PI with a coefficient of 0.818, and a formula based on linear regression was established to estimate the ideal L5I from PI as follows: L5I = 0.725 PI - 12.757. Pelvic tilt, sacral slope, lumbosacral angle, LL, lower arc of the LL, and height of L5-S1 disc were also found strongly correlated with L5I, whereas no correlation was found between upper arc of the LL and L5I. CONCLUSION: Strong correlations were found between L5I and spinopelvic parameters in healthy subjects, indicating that L5I was an important parameter in local lumbosacral alignment. Ideal postoperative L5I could be mathematically calculated by PI according to the formula as follows: L5I = 0.725 PI - 12.757, suggesting that calculated ideal L5I could be regarded as a guide in surgical decision making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".