Design of the Bracing in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Trial (BrAIST)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive. OBJECTIVE: To describe the design and development of Bracing in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Trial (BrAIST). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Bracing has remained the standard of care for the nonoperative treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis since the introduction of the Milwaukee brace in the late 1940s, but it has never been subjected to a rigorous evaluation of either its efficacy or its effectiveness. The BrAIST was designed to address the primary question: Do braces (specifically a thoracolumbosacral orthosis) lower the risk of curve progression to a surgical threshold (≥50°) in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis relative to watchful waiting alone? METHODS: The authors describe the rationale for BrAIST, including the limitations of the current literature evaluating bracing for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Second, the authors describe the preliminary work, including the preparation of the National Institutes of Health clinical trials planning grant. Finally, the authors describe the trial design in detail. RESULTS: BrAIST was conducted in 25 sites in North America. Subjects were treated either with a thoracolumbosacral orthosis or watchful waiting and followed every 6 months until they reached skeletal maturity or the surgical threshold of 50° Cobb angle. CONCLUSION: Clinical decision making will be improved by translation of the BrAIST results into evidence-based prognosis and estimates of how the prognosis, specifically the risk of progressing to surgery, may be altered by the use of bracing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".