Screening for scoliosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Idiopathic scoliosis affects 2-3% of adolescents. Large, progressing deformities, mostly present in girls, may lead to pulmonary complications, pain symptoms, the feeling of social isolation, and even mental disorders. The correlation of screening programs with surgery rate reduction and the clinical effectiveness of bracing remain a matter of debate. Critics indicate overdetection, qualification for therapy of insignificant curves, unjustified treatment, and risks of psychological side effects, whereas supporters underline the need for screening, and suggest improvements. It remains unclear whether such opposite opinions are based on sound evidence. To identify relevant studies, guidelines, and recommendations, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. The levels of evidence presented in selected studies and grading of recommendations reported in available guidelines and recommendation statements were assessed using the SIGN scoring system. Screening programs are legislated, recommended, or not recommended in different American states. British and Canadian screening recommendations do not mention scoliosis; Australian boards recommend against scoliosis screening programs. Other publications such as Singapore, Turkish, and Malaysian publications underline the cost-effectiveness and clinical importance of the procedures. Different Greek authors postulate the benefits and harms caused by the programs to many schoolchildren. Such a polarity illustrates the topicality of the quality of scientific evidence analyses and the significance of the grading of the recommendations process. It appears that critical opinions often result from implementing such analyses, whereas those supporting the programs tend to value the importance of expert opinions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".