SpineCore treatment for early scoliosis: 15° to 24°
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From 1993 to 2007, 615 patients were treated by the SpineCor brace. 238 patients had a Cobb between 15°–24° and respected the inclusion criteria and 123 finished their treatment. For those 123 patients the assessment of brace effectiveness included; 1) percentage of patients who have 5° or less curve progression and the percentage of patients who have 6° or more progression at skeletal maturity, 2) percentage of patients who have had surgery recommendation/undergone before skeletal maturity, 3) percentage of patients who progressed beyond 45° at maturity and 4) 2-years follow-up beyond maturity to determine the percentage of patients who subsequently undergo surgery. Successful treatment (correction >5° or stabilization ± 5°) was achieved in 88.6% (comparing with 82.7% for the 25°–40°cohort) of patients from the time of the fitting of the SpineCor brace to the point in which it was discontinued. 2 immature patients required surgical fusion while receiving treatment. From the total of 123 patients with a definite outcome, 76 have 2 years and 35 have 5 years follow-up. The SpineCor brace is effective for the treatment of early adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, and it seems that the results are better with an early bracing. Moreover, the positive outcome appears to be maintained in the long term.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".