Changes in Alignment of the Scoliotic Spine in Response to Lateral Bending
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cross-sectional review studied the posteroanterior and lateral bending radiographs of 26 preoperative patients with thoracic major adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the relation of vertebral axial rotation, apparent vertebral wedging, and disc wedging with lateral bending in patients with severe adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lateral bending radiographs are used commonly in surgical planning to assess the flexibility of the spine and to establish the placement of instrumentation. However, their use in the assessment of motion in the axial plane has not been clearly established. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from 26 subjects immediately before spinal surgery. All the subjects had adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with right thoracic major curves. Axial rotation, vertebral wedging, and disc wedging were measured from T4 to L4 on left and right supine bending and standing posteroanterior radiographs. The apexes of the major and minor curves, the neutral vertebrae, and the Cobb angles were recorded. RESULTS: No significant differences in axial rotation were found at the thoracic apex, neutral vertebrae, or lumbar apex in response to lateral bending. Most of the wedging occurs in the disc, and is maximal at the apex of the curve. The total amount of wedging was higher in more severe curves. CONCLUSIONS: Lateral bending does not improve axial rotation in severe scoliosis (scoliosis for which surgical correction is advised). Structural changes including disc and vertebral wedging may be responsible for the lack of rotational correction of the scoliotic spine. Lack of axial flexibility in the thoracic region may hamper surgical attempts to correct the deformities of the trunk.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".