The effect of a 6-month Schroth exercise program: a pilot study using subjects as their own controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods We included patients with AIS, 10-18 years, with curves of 10-45o, wearing a brace or not, and randomized initially into the standard-care group (observation or bracing) of an ongoing RCT. After receiving standard care for 6 months, controls received the 6-month Schroth intervention. Patients completed five introductory individual visits followed by 1-hour weekly supervised group sessions combined with daily home exercises prescribed using an algorithm (45 minutes). Outcomes were recorded at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Effect sizes were estimated using Cohen’s d (≥0.2=small, 0.5-0.8=moderate, >0.8=large), which corresponds to the difference between groups divided by the pooled standard deviation of the individual differences[2]. Results Of 13 subjects, 2 dropped out while controls and 2 while in Schroth therapy. Of the nine subjects who completed all follow-ups, the mean age and Cobb angle at baseline were 14.0±1.8yrs and 31±10.5o (17-43o), respectively. The recruitment rate was 14% among eligible participants, with time constraints limiting participation. All effect sizes favored Schroth except the Spinal Appearance Questionnaire (SAQ) waist score (0.14). Effect sizes for the SRS-22r questionnaire were as follows: self-image=0.92, pain=0.60, function=0.18 and total=0.56. Pain, self-image and total scores improvements were statistically significant (repeated measures ANOVA). SAQ effect sizes were as follows: general=0.23, chest=0.96, kyphosis=1.43, shoulders=0.40, trunk shift=0.44, prominence=0.77 and curve=0.89. Effect sizes for curve measures were as follows: major Cobb angle=0.00 and combined Cobb angles=0.13. Global ratings of change were significantly higher after Schroth therapy (4.7±2.3, 15-point scale).
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".