CAD/CAM and biomechanical simulations vs. standard technique for the design of braces in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: first results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods So far, 4 AIS patients were recruited. Two braces were built for each patient: 1) a standard TLSO designed using the plaster-cast method (Std Brace), and 2) a brace designed and fabricated using a biomechanical 3D finite element model personalized to the patient’s geometry, and a CAD/CAM software (NewBrace). NewBrace was optimized using a computational brace simulator that allows virtual installation of the brace on the patient model, and prediction of its effect before fabrication. Several virtual braces were thus iteratively tested, and the one giving the best immediate correction was chosen for refinement by the orthotist, and fabricated using a computer-aided carver. Immediate brace effectiveness was assessed using radiographs in both braces. Results For the first 4 patients, the Std Brace corrected the thoracic and lumbar Cobb angles by 51% and 45% respectively, while NewBrace corrected these angles by 41% and 48%. There was little effect of the sagittal curves, and both braces maintained the coronal balance. The patients were more comfortable in the NewBrace. The predictions of the brace simulator were found to be reliable.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".