Preliminary Evaluation of a Computer-Assisted Tool for the Design and Adjustment of Braces in Idiopathic Scoliosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective and randomized clinical study. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the correction of the spine obtained using a 3-dimensional visualization software tool developed to assist the design and adjustment of braces compared with the correction obtained with the conventional method in a cohort of subjects with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The optimal design and adjustment of trim lines, pad placement, and areas of relief for the Boston brace system in AIS are currently done using clinical examination and coronal radiographs. Correction of spinal curves in the coronal plane has been achieved with this technique, but 3-dimensional correction has yet to be demonstrated. METHODS: Forty-eight consecutive subjects with AIS requiring treatment with a Boston brace were prospectively entered in the study. For 24 patients (test group), brace design and adjustment was obtained using the computer-assisted tool combining surface topography, surface pressure measurement, and 3-dimensional reconstructions of the trunk, while design and adjustment for the remaining subjects (control group) was done in the conventional manner. Immediate in-brace correction of the spine at the initial visit was compared in both groups. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, curve type, and average deformity in both the coronal and sagittal planes. The average prebrace thoracic deformity was 35 degrees of Cobb angle, while the average lumbar curve was 32 degrees in the test group and 35 degrees in controls. A statistically and clinically significant improvement in correction of coronal curves and of curves in the plane of maximal deformity was found for both thoracic and lumbar curves in both groups, but the improvement was significantly greater in the test group. The average in-brace correction in the test group was 12 degrees +/- 7 degrees compared with 7 degrees +/- 5 degrees in the control group for thoracic curves, while the average in-brace correction in the test group was 10 degrees +/- 5 degrees compared with 6 degrees +/- 5 degrees in the control group for lumbar curves. Similar average corrections were detected in the plane of maximal deformity. In addition, a significant improvement in the orientation of the plane of maximum deformity from 37 degrees to 23 degrees for lumbar curves was noted only in the test group, indicating that true 3-dimensional correction by the brace was obtained in this group. CONCLUSION: It is possible to improve the design and adjustment of braces in AIS and to achieve 3-dimensional correction of scoliotic curves with the use of a computer-assisted tool allowing 3-dimensional visualization of the spinal curves and the external shape of the trunk.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".