BrAIST: planning and current status of Bracing in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The randomized controlled trial has emerged as the gold standard for all clinical research. The combination of randomized assignment to groups, use of strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, standardized protocols and ad hoc power analysis serve to rule out many threats to the internal validity of research results. Thus, it is the most powerful methodology available to researchers investigating the relative effectiveness of treatments. To date, there have been only 2 randomized studies examining the effectiveness of bracing for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. The purpose of this presentation is to discuss the planning and the current status of the Bracing in Adolescent Scoliosis Trial (BrAIST). This five-year, > $5 million project includes 27 healthcare centers, and is funded by the United States National Institutes of Health, the Canadian Institute of Health Research, and the Shriners Hospitals. Additionally, 3 institutions, including the Chinese University of Hong Kong, are participating using internal funding. The protocol randomizes children with AIS who are at high risk for curve progression to treatment with a thoracolumbosacral orthosis or to clinical monitoring. The study is currently in its second year of recruitment. BrAIST incorporates several innovations never used in a single study to date: 1) randomization, 2) objective brace dose monitoring, 3) standardized, objective radiographic measurement, 4) comprehensive radiographic, clinical, and psychosocial testing, 5) diversity of participating sites and 6) ad hoc determination of effect size, based on the risk/benefit considerations of potential patients. Issues to be discussed include • Ethics - rationale for the ethics of an observation arm • Protocol development and implementation - endpoints, measures, quality assurance • Recruitment and randomization - expectations and actuality • Bracing quality control - independent review of in-brace films • Patient/family decision-making - impact of information and being offered a choice • Brace compliance monitoring - reliability/validity of temperature as proxy for dose
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".