Does Spinal Fusion Influence Quality of Life in Neuromuscular Scoliosis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. Systematic literature review of articles pertaining to quality of life (QOL) in neuromuscular scoliosis patients that underwent spinal fusion. Objective. To determine if QOL is improved by scoliosis surgery in neuromuscular patients. Summary of Background Data. The primary focus of most prior studies on neuromuscular scoliosis has been on the technical correction of spinal deformities, and not the child’s postoperative performance and function in activities of daily living. Methods. Computer-based English literature search of Google and PubMed databases. Results. A total of 198 publications in the English literature between 1980 and 2006 were identified from a PubMed and Google Scholar search of QOL in neuromuscular scoliosis patients that underwent spinal fusion. Conclusion. Spinal fusion improves QOL in CP (Grade C recommendation). Spinal fusion improves QOL in muscular dystrophy (Grade C recommendation). Spinal fusion does not improve QOL in spina bifida (Grade C recommendation). In order to determine if QOL is improved by spinal fusion in neuromuscular patients, a systematic literature review was performed. A total of 198 publications in the English literature between 1980 and 2006 were identified regarding QOL in neuromuscular scoliosis patients that underwent spinal fusion. The conclusion of this literature review is that spinal fusion improves QOL in CP and muscular dystrophy but not in spina bifida.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".