Review of current technologies and methods supplementing brace treatment in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report on the current technologies and methods supplementing brace treatment in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was performed to determine the effectiveness of bracing, to report on imaging techniques that can assist in the assessment of bracing, to understand the roles of the biomechanical treatment concepts on bracing and to address the importance of the quality of life of the brace wearers. RESULTS: The effectiveness of bracing still remains controversial. Many technologies are still in development to improve the bracing process and quantify the effects of bracing. Imaging techniques with decreased or no radiation are promising in providing more frequent data on curve progression for patients. Computer-assisted design models have been used for both fitting and manufacturing the brace to patient contours. Ultrasound has been developed as a new means of diagnosing scoliosis and determining the effects of a brace on a patient's spine in real time. The brace treatment outcomes are correlated to the quantity and the quality of brace usage. Compliance monitors and force sensors have been developed to track the quality of brace usage. Improvements to brace wear also require consideration of patient quality of life. Surveys have been developed to describe the effects of family influence and self-image on bracing effectiveness of patient quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Bracing remains a highly qualitative process, relying on the empirical judgment of the physicians and orthotists, along with buy-in with the patient. The suggested improvements will help to push bracing into a more evidence-based practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".