Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scoliosis is a three-dimensional spinal deformity for which surgery may be indicated when patients experience severe pain, curve progression, or progressive disability. Operative treatment has conventionally involved extensive posterior stabilization, either alone or in combination with anterior release procedures. Anterior-only approaches have a more limited role, but they should be considered in the appropriate setting when addressing this disease. Some advantages of anterior-only approaches to scoliosis include greater corrective ability with a greater fusion rate while mandating fewer motion segments to be involved in the instrumented construct. Preventing denervation of the posterior paraspinal musculature is also desirable and is inherently provided for by the anterior approach. Disadvantages include pulmonary morbidity associated with violating the thoracic cavity, as well as post-thoracotomy chronic pain. There are also limitations in the indications for which anterior-only surgery can be performed, and these will be discussed along with treatment options. Technological advances, including minimally invasive thoracic access as well as evolving instrumentation, may minimize the stated disadvantages and expand the scope of scoliosis cases that may be treated by anterior-only approaches. Hence, the enhanced corrective ability and biomechanical advantages of the anterior column can be used in the treatment of these patients. Although the indications for anterior-only strategies in scoliosis remain limited, such operations should be considered in the appropriate setting when addressing spinal deformity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".