Human Experts’ and a Fuzzy Model's Predictions of Outcomes of Scoliosis Treatment: A Comparative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brace treatment is the most commonly used nonsurgical treatment for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. However, brace treatment is not always successful and the factors influencing its success are not completely clear. This makes treatment outcome difficult to predict. A computer model which can accurately predict treatment outcomes could potentially provide valuable treatment recommendations. This paper describes a fuzzy system that includes a prediction model and a decision support engine. The model was constructed using conditional fuzzy c-means clustering to discover patterns in retrospective patient data. The model's ability to predict treatment outcome was compared to the ability of eight Scoliosis experts. The model and experts each predicted treatment outcome retrospectively for 28 braced patients, and these predictions were compared to the actual outcomes. The model outperformed all but one expert individually and performed similarly to the experts as a group. These results suggest that the fuzzy model is capable of providing meaningful treatment recommendations. This study offers the first model for this application whose performance has been shown to be at or above the human expert level.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".