Computerized Assessment of Sagittal Curvatures of the Spine
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The tangent circles technique has been proposed as an alternative to the Cobb angle technique to assess sagittal curves of the spine. However, it has never been compared directly to the Cobb technique. This study compares the reproducibility and clinical relevance of the maximum Cobb angle and tangent circles techniques. METHOD: Standing sagittal radiographs of the spine of 10 adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis, 10 adolescents with spondylolisthesis, and 10 healthy adolescents were used. Thoracic kyphosis (TK) and lumbar lordosis (LL) were measured by 3 observers using the maximum Cobb angle and the tangent circles techniques. Intra- and interobserver intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated. RESULT: Intra- and interobserver ICCs for TK were 0.88 and 0.85, respectively, for the maximum Cobb angle technique, and 0.94 and 0.83, respectively, for the tangent circles technique. Intra- and interobserver ICCs for LL were 0.97 and 0.77, respectively, for the maximum Cobb angle technique, and 0.88 and 0.94, respectively, for the tangent circles technique. The 2 techniques were highly correlated for the measurement of the TK (r=0.93) and LL (r=0.88). CONCLUSION: Both techniques provide excellent intra- and interobserver reproducibility. Tangent circles technique may be a good alternative to the Cobb angle technique because it allows the evaluation of the global geometry of sagittal spinal curves, especially when there is limited visibility of bony structures on radiographs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it