Feasibility and three months preliminary results of an RCT on the effect of Schroth exercises in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods Fifteen patients with AIS, aged 10-18, with curves 10 – 45 degrees, braced or not, were randomized into Schroth, or standard care, groups. The six-month Schroth intervention consists of weekly one-hour long group exercise sessions, combined with a daily 45-minute long home program, consisting of 3-4 exercises prescribed using an algorithm. Compliance was monitored with a logbook. SRS-22r, Spinal Appearance Questionnaire, Sorensen back endurance, and Self-efficacy and Global Rating of Change (GRC) outcomes were measured. The effect sizes of the Schroth exercise treatment on key outcomes were estimated using Cohen’s d (≥0.8=large, 0.5-0.8=moderate, 0.2-0.5=small). Cohen’s d is defined as the difference in change between the group means, Schroth – Standard care, observed from baseline to 3 months, divided by the pooled standard deviation at baseline. Results Of 122 eligible patients, fifteen (12.3%) were enrolled between April and August 2011. Recruitment was 3 per month. Exercise subjects attended 89±9% of the prescribed weekly exercise sessions, and completed 76±8% of the prescribed home exercises. Only one Standardcare subject dropped out due to relocation. For SRS-22r domains, Cohen’s d effect sizes favored standard care: -0.31 for Self-image, -0.72 for Function, and -0.38 for Pain. For SAQ domains, some effect sizes favored standard care: 0.50 for General, 0.46 for Curve, 1.36 for Prominence, 0.57 for Shoulders and 0.35 for Chest. Other SAQ effect sizes favored Schroth: -0.14 for Trunk Shift, -0.31 for waist. The Sorensen test’s effect size was -0.14, and Self-efficacy’s was 0.5, both favoring standard care. The mean difference between groups in GRC was 3.4±1.7 in favor of the Schroth group.
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 | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".