MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063032053 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181af28bf

Discriminative and Predictive Validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Questionnaire in Management and Curve-Severity Subgroups of Adolescents With Idiopathic Scoliosis

2009· article· en· W2063032053 on OpenAlexaff
Éric Parent, Doug Hill, J Mahood, Marc Moreau, Jim Raso, Edmond Lou

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaGlenrose Rehabilitation Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScoliosisCobb angleIdiopathic scoliosisPhysical therapyBraceDiscriminative modelRadiographySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional measurement study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the ability of the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22 questionnaire to discriminate among management and scoliosis severity subgroups and to correlate with internal and external measures of curve severity. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In earlier studies of the SRS-22 discriminative ability, age was not a controlled factor. The ability of the SRS-22 to predict curve severity has not been thoroughly examined. METHODS: The SRS-22 was completed by 227 females with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Using Analysis of covariance analyses controlling for age, the SRS-22 scores were compared among management subgroups (observation, brace, presurgery, and postsurgery) and curve-severity subgroups (in nonoperated subjects: Cobb angles of <30 degrees, 30 degrees -50 degrees, and >50 degrees). A stepwise discriminant analysis was used to identify the SRS-22 domains most discriminative for curve-severity categories. Correlation between SRS-22 scores and radiographic or surface topography measurements was used to determine the predictive ability of the questionnaire. RESULTS: Pain was better for subjects treated with braces than for those planning surgery. Self-image was better for subjects under observation or postsurgery than for those planning surgery. Satisfaction was better for the brace and postsurgery subgroups than for the observation or presurgery subgroups. Statistically significant mean differences between subgroups were all larger than 0.5, which is within the range of minimal clinically important differences recommended for each of the 5-point SRS-22 domain scoring scales. Pain and mental health were worse for those with Cobb angles of >50 degrees than with Cobb angles of 30 degrees to 50 degrees. Self-image and total scores were worse for those with Cobb angles of >50 degrees than both other subgroups. Using discriminant analysis, self-image was the only SRS-22 domain score selected to classify subjects within curve severity subgroups. The percentage of patients accurately classified was 54% when trying to classify within 3 curve severity subgroups. The percentage of patients accurately classified was 73% when classifying simply as those with curves larger or smaller than 50 degrees . CONCLUSION: Pain, self-image, and satisfaction scores could discriminate among management subgroups, but function, mental health and total scores could not. The total score and all domain scores except satisfaction discriminated among curve-severity subgroups. Using discriminant analysis, self-image was the only domain retained in a model predicting curve-severity categories.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations60
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207