Physical activities of Patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS): preliminary longitudinal case–control study historical evaluation of possible risk factors
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To our knowledge there are no publications that have evaluated physical activities in relation to the etiopathogenesis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) other than sports scolioses. In a preliminary longitudinal case-control study, mother and child were questioned and the children examined by one observer. The aim of the study was to examine possible risk factors for AIS. Two study groups were assessed for physical activities: 79 children diagnosed as having progressive AIS at one spinal deformity centre (66 girls, 13 boys) and a Control Group of 77 school children (66 girls, 11 boys), the selection involving six criteria. A structured history of physical activities was obtained, every child allocated to a socioeconomic group and examined for toe touching. Unlike the Patients, the Controls were not X-rayed and were examined for surface vertical spinous process asymmetry (VSPA). Statistical analyses showed progressive AIS to be positively associated with social deprivation, early introduction to indoor heated swimming pools and ability to toe touch. AIS is negatively associated with participation in dance, skating, gymnastics or karate and football or hockey classes, which might suggest preventive possibilities. There is a significantly increased independent odds of AIS in children who went to an indoor heated swimming pool within the first year of life (odds ratio 3.88, 95% CI 1.77-8.48; p = 0·001). Furthermore fourteen (61%) Controls with VSPA compared with 9 (17%) Controls without VSPA had been introduced to the swimming pool within their first year of life (P < 0.001). Early exposure to indoor heated swimming pools for both AIS and VSPA, suggests that the AIS findings do not result from sample selection.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".