MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060907785 · doi:10.1142/s0219519410003381

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SAGITTAL SPINAL CURVES AND BACK SURFACE PROFILES OBTAINED WITH RADIOGRAPHS

2010· article· en· W2060907785 on OpenAlexaff
Éric Berthonnaud, P. FOUGIER, R. Hilmi, Hubert Labelle, J. Dimnet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersFudan University
KeywordsSagittal planeRadiographySpinal deformityMedicineDeformitySurface (topology)OrthodonticsMathematicsAnatomyRadiologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article is to introduce a novel approach, by using coupled video and radiographic analysis of back surface and spinal curves in the sagittal plane to decrease the ionizing radiation exposure for subjects requiring long-term follow-up of their spinal deformity. This approach is specifically designed for the use in a clinical set-up for the follow-up of subjects with progressive spinal deformities. The subjects are radiographed with nine steel balls embedded in circular markers evenly distributed on the subject's back surface over the spinous processes of C7 to S1. A technique allows to draw the external back profile and the spinal curve. Patient-specific transfer functions are defined moving the back profile to the spinal curve. Sixteen adult volunteers were tested to validate the concepts proposed. For each of them, the values of transfer functions between radiographic back surface profile and corresponding spinal curve have been calculated. Each internal curve is correctly simulated when based upon the back profile. Our research is now focused on the prediction of the internal curve of patients from their back surface profile based on patient-specific transfer functions.

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)0.001
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mechanics in Medicine and BiologySame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207