MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063082183 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181b9c9c0

Score Distribution of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Questionnaire in Subgroups of Patients of All Ages With Idiopathic Scoliosis

2010· article· en· W2063082183 on OpenAlexaff
Éric Parent, Rohan Dang, Doug Hill, J Mahood, Marc Moreau, Jim Raso, Edmond Lou

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaGlenrose Rehabilitation Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCeiling effectMedicineScoliosisCeiling (cloud)Cobb angleIdiopathic scoliosisQuality of life (healthcare)Physical therapyDemographySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional measurement study. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the score distribution of the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22 questionnaire domains and items for patients with idiopathic scoliosis (IS) of all ages. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Scoliosis-related quality-of-life questionnaires have demonstrated high ceiling effects in younger patients. However, the score distribution has not been examined thoroughly in other clinically relevant IS subgroups. METHODS: The SRS-22 was completed by 173 females with IS. The proportions of ceiling effects, floor effects, of patients scoring greater than or equal to 4 out of 5 and the box plots of the score distribution for each domain and item were compared between subgroups. Subgroups were formed based on age (k = 4), management (k = 6), curve severity (k = 3), and curve type (k = 4). RESULTS: Domain ceiling effects varied between 0% and 23.1%. Domain floor effects were observed only for Self-image (<7%) and Satisfaction (<12%). Only Pain and Satisfaction showed moderate (>20%) ceiling effects. Ceiling effects for Pain and Mental Health decreased with increasing age (P < 0.05). Pain ceiling effects decreased and Satisfaction ceiling effects increased from least to most invasive management (P < 0.05), but no differences were found among Cobb severity or curve types subgroups. Of the 22 items, 9 had major (>or=50%) ceiling effects and 11 had moderate ceiling effects. Most subgroups (14/16) had 4 to 6 items with major ceiling effects. The following items had major ceiling effects in the majority of subgroups: Function, 9 and 15; Pain, 11 and 17; and Self-image, 14. CONCLUSION: Most SRS-22 domains had acceptable levels of ceiling effects (<20%) in the majority of the subgroups examined. However, more sensitive measurements may be needed to supplement the SRS-22 in assessing Pain in patients below 18 years or Satisfaction after surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations41
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207