Estimation of Spinal Deformity in Scoliosis From Torso Surface Cross Sections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Correlation of torso scan and three-dimensional radiographic data in 65 scans of 40 subjects. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether full-torso surface laser scan images can be effectively used to estimate spinal deformity with the aid of an artificial neural network. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Quantification of torso surface asymmetry may aid diagnosis and monitoring of scoliosis and thereby minimize the use of radiographs. Artificial neural networks are computing tools designed to relate input and output data when the form of the relation is unknown. METHODS: A three-dimensional torso scan taken concurrently with a pair of radiographs was used to generate an integrated three-dimensional model of the spine and torso surface. Sixty-five scan-radiograph pairs were generated during 18 months in 40 patients (Cobb angles 0-58 degrees ): 34 patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and six with juvenile scoliosis. Sixteen (25%) were randomly selected for testing and the remainder (n = 49) used to train the artificial neural network. Contours were cut through the torso model at each vertebral level, and the line joining the centroids of area of the torso contours was generated. Lateral deviations and angles of curvature of this line, and the relative rotations of the principal axes of each contour were computed. Artificial neural network estimations of maximal computer Cobb angle were made. RESULTS: Torso-spine correlations were generally weak (r < 0.5), although the range of torso rotation related moderately well to the maximal Cobb angle (r = 0.64). Deformity of the torso centroid line was minimal despite significant spinal deformity in the patients studied. Despite these limitations and the small data set, the artificial neural network estimated the maximal Cobb angle within 6 degrees in 63% of the test data set and was able to distinguish a Cobb angle greater than 30 degrees with a sensitivity of 1.0 and specificity of 0.75. CONCLUSIONS: Neural-network analysis of full-torso scan imaging shows promise to accurately estimate scoliotic spinal deformity in a variety of patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".