Multilevel Analysis of Trunk Surface Measurements for Noninvasive Assessment of Scoliosis Deformities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Reliability study. OBJECTIVES: To assess between-acquisition reliability of new multilevel trunk cross sections measurements, in order to define what is a real change when comparing 2 trunk surface acquisitions of a same patient, before and after surgery or throughout the clinical monitoring. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Several cross-sectional surface measurements have been proposed in the literature for noninvasive assessment of trunk deformity in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). However, only the maximum values along the trunk are evaluated and used for monitoring progression and assessing treatment outcome. METHODS: Back surface rotation (BSR), trunk rotation (TR), and coronal and sagittal trunk deviation are computed on 300 cross sections of the trunk. Each set of 300 measures is represented as a single functional data, using a set of basis functions. To evaluate between-acquisition variability at all trunk levels, a test-retest reliability study is conducted on 35 patients with AIS. A functional correlation analysis is also carried out to evaluate any redundancy between the measurements. RESULTS: Each set of 300 measures was successfully described using only 10 basis functions. The test-retest reliability of the functional measurements is good to very good all over the trunk, except above the shoulders level. The typical errors of measurement are between 1.20° and 2.2° for the rotational measures and between 2 and 6 mm for deviation measures. There is a very strong correlation between BSR and TR all over the trunk, a moderate correlation between coronal trunk deviation and both BSR and TR, and no correlation between sagittal trunk deviation and any other measurement. CONCLUSION: This novel representation of trunk surface measurements allows for a global assessment of trunk surface deformity. Multilevel trunk measurements provide a broader perspective of the trunk deformity and allow a reliable multilevel monitoring during clinical follow-up of patients with AIS and a reliable assessment of the esthetic outcome after surgery.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".