Score Distribution of the Scoliosis Quality of Life Index Questionnaire in Different Subgroups of Patients With Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional measurement study. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the score distribution on the Scoliosis Quality of Life Index (SQLI) questionnaire domains and items for subjects with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The SQLI was derived from the SRS-22 questionnaire so that it would be more applicable to persons with AIS between 10 and 18 years old. However, the score distribution of the SRS-22 is characterized by high ceiling effects within subgroups of persons with AIS. METHODS: The SQLI questionnaire was completed by 95 females with AIS. Floor, ceiling effects, and score distribution were examined for subgroups based on age (n = 4), management (4), curve severity (3), and curve type (6). RESULTS: Ceiling effect proportions (0%-40%) were higher than floor effects (n = 1). Back pain and satisfaction were the only domains with ceiling effects exceeding 20%. For some domains, ceiling effects were significantly most prevalent for younger subgroups, those with low or moderate curve severity and those treated less aggressively. High ceiling effects were also observed for the observation, postsurgical, main thoracic, and double major curves subgroups. More than half the participants scored over 4/5 for all SQLI domains in the overall sample and in the observation, surgery, <13.5 years, 13.5 to <15 years, <30 degrees, 30 degrees to 50 degrees, main thoracic curves, double major curves, and thoracolumbar/lumbar curves subgroups, respectively. At least one item from each domain (except satisfaction) showed ceiling effects >50% in most subgroups (14 or more subgroups out of 15). CONCLUSION: Even though ceiling effects (>20%) were not common, scores clustered near the top of the SQLI scale. The SQLI score distribution may impair the questionnaire's sensitivity to change and discriminative ability, particularly in younger subjects with lesser low or moderate curve severity, under observation or after surgery. The clinical utility of some SQLI items within each domain may be limited by high ceiling effects.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".