Reliability of lateral bending and axial rotation with validity of a new method to determine axial rotation on anteroposterior cervical radiographs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the reliability of a new radiographic measurement of axial rotation and lateral bending on anterior-posterior cervical views by using a computer and sonic digitizer. DESIGN: A blind, repeated-measure design was used. Anteroposterior cervicothoracic radiographs were presented to each of 3 examiners in random order. Each film was digitized, and 1 week later the films were randomized for a second run. SETTING: Private, primary-care chiropractic clinic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The interclass and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for intraexaminer and interexaminer reliability were calculated from measurements on radiographs for determining axial rotations (Ry) and lateral bending (Rz) of C3 to T3. RESULTS: When the new axial rotation method was applied to small rotations of a C3 plastic model, the average error was less than 1 degrees. For the calculations of axial rotation (Ry), the ICC values were in the good to excellent range. For axial rotation, the intraclass correlation coefficients were ICCs > or =0.78, and the interclass correlation coefficients were ICCs > or =0.67. For lateral flexions (Rz) of C3 to T3, all intraclass and interclass correlation coefficients were in the excellent range (ICCs > 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Methods of calculating axial rotations in the spine have been reported for large angles (5 degrees to 30 degrees ) but not for smaller angles. A new method for determining axial rotations of the cervical segments on AP views, based on the chord across the arc displaced by the spinous-lamina junction, had reliability (ICC values) in the good to excellent range. Compared with measured rotations of a C3 model (-5 degrees to +5 degrees ), the new method had an average error of less than 1 degrees and approximately 11.5%. The reliability for the axial rotation measurements was in the good to excellent range, and the lateral bending measurements were all in the excellent range.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".