Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The predominant classification systems for scoliosis have been based either on etiology or curve pattern. Traditionally triple curves have not been included in either classification system. METHODS: We reviewed the records of all children with an idiopathic triple scoliotic curve seen between 1988 and 2001 at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, a major pediatric referral centre. The triple curve had 3 structural curved segments in accordance with the classification of Lenke and associates. Scoliosis was defined by a curve greater than 10 degrees, and the apical vertebra was determined according to Scoliosis Research Society guidelines. Laterality of the curve was determined from the curve with the greatest magnitude. Curve progression was an increase in magnitude of at least 5 degrees. Management included observation, with bracing if any curve progressed to greater than 20 degrees. Surgery was reserved for curves that were unstable, rapidly progressive and greater than 45 degrees-50 degrees. RESULTS: Thirteen children (9 girls, 4 boys) were treated for a triple scoliosis curve. The average age at the time the triple curve developed was 13 years and 9 months (range from 9 yr 1 mo-17 yr 5 mo). The average follow-up was 3 years and 6 months (range from 1-11 yr). One child required spinal fusion, and 6 years postoperatively the curve was stable with a good fusion mass. Of the remaining children, 2 were treated with an orthosis and 10 with observation. CONCLUSION: The triple major curve is a neglected curve pattern that should be included in classifications of scoliosis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".