MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Three-Dimensional Radiographic Comparison of Cotrel–Dubousset and Colorado Instrumentations for the Correction of Idiopathic Scoliosis

2000· article· en· W2074737581 on OpenAlexaff
Hubert Labelle, Carl‐Éric Aubin, Jacques A. de Guise, Charles‐H. Rivard, Benoît Poitras, Jean Dansereau

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScoliosisInstrumentation (computer programming)RachisCoronal planeRadiographyOrthodonticsLumbarIdiopathic scoliosisOrthopedic surgerySpinal fusionSpinal CurvaturesSurgeryNuclear medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective clinical study comparing two instrumentation systems for the correction of idiopathic scoliosis. OBJECTIVES: To measure the short-term three-dimensional changes in the shape of the spine after corrective surgery and compare the Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation to the more recent Colorado instrumentation to determine whether one system provides better three-dimensional correction. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Adequate three-dimensional correction of scoliotic deformities has been reported with the Cortrel-Dubousset instrumentation system. During the past decade, a new generation of more versatile and user-friendly spinal implants has appeared, but there are no reports available to indicate whether similar or better correction can be obtained with these newer systems. METHODS: The three-dimensional geometry of the thoracic and lumbar spine was documented in the standing position using a three-dimensional reconstruction technique based on multiplanar radiography in 67 adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis undergoing correction by a posterior approach. Changes in spinal shape were measured 3 days before and 1 month after the surgery in 31 patients with Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation and 36 patients with Colorado instrumentation. RESULTS: In both groups, adequate three-dimensional correction of the scoliotic deformities was documented for thoracic and lumbar curves, with significant changes in the frontal plane, in the plane of maximum curvature, and in its orientation. When comparing both groups, better correction was obtained in the frontal plane with the Colorado instrumentation (65% vs. 48% with Cotrel-Dubousset), a finding that may be explained by the significantly greater proportion of pedicle screws used in this group. CONCLUSION: Both instrumentation techniques achieve an effective and comparable three-dimensional correction of the scoliotic deformities.

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)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations74
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207