The Relationship Between Function, Self-perception, and Spinal Deformity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship of spinal deformity with physical function and self-perception in children with spina bifida. Ninety-eight eligible children with scoliosis and spina bifida were identified; 80 of them (82%) consented to participate. Spinal deformity was measured in many ways, including scoliosis, coronal balance, and pelvic obliquity. Measures of physical function included the Sitting Balance Scale, Jebsen Hand Scale, Hoffer Ambulation Scale, the Spine Bifida Spine Questionnaire, and the Activities Scale for Kids (ASK). Self-perception was determined with Harter's Self-Perception Profile. No relationship was found between spinal deformity and overall physical function (ASK). Of all aspects of spinal deformity, only coronal imbalance was significantly related to only one aspect of physical function (ie, sitting imbalance). No aspect of spinal deformity was related to self-perception. In conclusion, surgeons should be clear in their indications for surgery and recognize that in the short term the potential benefit of surgery may be, at best, to improve only sitting balance.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".