What Do Patients and Parents Know About Surgery for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Questionnaire. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop a reliable and valid questionnaire to assess patient and parent knowledge concerning risks, benefits, and complications of surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Families of adolescents with moderate to severe AIS are required to make an important decision on whether to proceed with surgery. Prior research has found families have substantial need for information with regard to surgery, and these needs may not be met by the health care system. METHODS: The study sample consisted of AIS patients and their parents. The questionnaire was administered to patients (and their parents) who were either actively braced (Cobb angle 30 degrees-50 degrees) or were within 1 year of surgery. The questionnaires were completed 2 weeks apart to test reliability of responses. To test construct validity, we hypothesized that patients who were postoperative would know more about the risks and benefits of surgery for AIS than those who were currently braced. RESULTS: Postoperative patients' and parents' scores were significantly greater than bracing patients' and parents' scores (P < 0.0001). Parents and patients reliably completed the questionnaires 2 weeks apart (Intraclass coefficient 0.83 and 0.68; CI = 0.83-0.96 and 0.45-0.83, respectively). CONCLUSION: The questionnaire was valid and reliable in evaluating patients' and parents' knowledge of AIS surgery and may be used in evaluating educational interventions for patients and parents.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".