MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044314300 · doi:10.1186/1748-7161-4-s2-o38

Prediction of curve progression for AIS patients treated with a TLSO Brace

2009· article· en· W2044314300 on OpenAlexaff
Edmond Lou, Douglas L. Hill, Éric Parent, Jim Raso, Marc Moreau, J Mahood, Douglas Hedden

Bibliographic record

VenueScoliosis · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBraceMedicineOrthopedic surgeryIdiopathic scoliosisOrthodonticsSurgeryScoliosisStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to develop a curve progression model for patients with AIS receiving brace treatment by considering compliance measures and in-brace correction factors. Bracing is the most commonly used non-surgical treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Prediction of brace treatment outcomes has not been well documented. Twenty subjects (17 females, 3 males), aged 13.4 ± 1.8 years, were prescribed a full-time TLSO (22 hr/day) and were monitored and followed for 3 years. All subjects met the SRS Brace Study inclusion criteria. The brace usage in terms of quantity (percent of wear time relative to the prescribed wear) and quality (percent of wear tightness relative to the prescribed tightness level) was logged with a compliance monitoring system. The Peterson's risk of progression at the time when the brace was prescribed was calculated based on 4 variables: Risser sign, apex of the curve, age, and imbalance. In-brace curve correction (flexibility) was calculated using the following: (Initial Cobb - in-brace Cobb)/Initial Cobb. A predictive model for curve progression using regression was developed based on the Peterson's risk of progression, quantity, quality, and the percentage of in-brace correction. Data from six new subjects who used a monitoring system and were followed for 2 years after bracing was used to assess the validity of the model. The Cobb angles of the subjects pre-brace (n = 9), in-brace(n = 8) and 3 years after weaning(n = 23) were 32, 11, and 35 degrees, respectively. The individual parameters, including Peterson's risk of progression, flexibility, quality, quantity, and quality*quantity, contributed to the curve progression model were 8%, 19%, 15%, 8% and 14%, respectively. Combining all variables, 56% of the variance in curve progression can be predicted. The curve progression model was: curve Progression (in degrees) = 33 + 0.11*Peterson Risk (%) - 0.07 in-brace correction (%) - 0.45*Quality (%) - 0.48*Quantity (%) + 0.62*Quantity*Quality. The results from the 6 new subjects are in table I. The largest prediction error of the prediction model was 3 degrees. It is possible to predict the curve progression for AIS patients who have brace treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScoliosisSame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207