Pelvic Morphology, Body Posture and Standing Balance Characteristics of Adolescent Able-Bodied and Idiopathic Scoliosis Girls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine how pelvic morphology, body posture, and standing balance variables of scoliotic girls differ from those of able-bodied girls, and to classify neuro-biomechanical variables in terms of a lower number of unobserved variables. Twenty-eight scoliotic and twenty-five non-scoliotic able-bodied girls participated in this study. 3D coordinates of ten anatomic body landmarks were used to describe pelvic morphology and trunk posture using a Flock of Birds system. Standing balance was measured using a force plate to identify the center of pressure (COP), and its anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) displacements. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to determine differences between the two groups. A factor analysis was used to identify factors that best describe both groups. Statistical differences were identified between the groups for each of the parameter types. While spatial orientation of the pelvis was similar in both groups, five of the eight trunk postural variables of the scoliotic group were significantly different that the able-bodied group. Also, five out of the seven standing balance variables were higher in the scoliotic girls. Approximately 60% of the variation is supported by 4 factors that can be associated with a set of variables; standing balance variables (factor 1), body posture variables (factor 2), and pelvic morphology variables (factors 3 and 4). Pelvic distortion, body posture asymmetry, and standing imbalance are more pronounced in scoliotic girls, when compared to able-bodied girls. These findings may be beneficial when addressing balance and ankle proprioception exercises for the scoliotic population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".