Differences in Postoperative Quality of Life Between Adolescent Patients With Idiopathic Scoliosis Residing in Urban and Rural Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: To study the effects of living environment, rural and urban, on the postoperative quality of life in adolescent patients with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) and to explore its causes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many factors are capable of influencing the health-related quality of life of AIS patients including degree of the malformation, culture, treatment method, and the living environment of the patient. METHODS: Postoperative AIS patients (n = 117, 16 males and 101 females) were divided into 2 groups (the urban group and the rural group). All patients completed the simplified Chinese version of the SRS-22 scale and the scores on the individual domain, and items were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: The score on satisfaction of management domain in the urban group was higher than that in the rural group, but the score on the self-image/appearance in the urban group was significantly lower (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in function/activity, pain or mental health domain between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). Scores for items 12, 15, and 18 in the function/activity domain, items 4, 6, and 10 in the self-image/appearance domain, and item 22 in the satisfaction of management domain were significantly different between the 2 groups (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Living environment may influence the assessment results of the postoperative quality of life in AIS patients. The effects of environment (i.e., rural vs. urban) should be considered when using the SRS-22 scale to evaluate the quality of life of the patients.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".