MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147769521 · doi:10.1109/titb.2005.847169

A Support Vectors Classifier Approach to Predicting the Risk of Progression of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis

2005· article· en· W2147769521 on OpenAlexaff
Peter O. Ajemba, L. Ramirez, N.G. Durdle, Doug Hill, V.J. Raso

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogistic regressionScoliosisStepwise regressionIdiopathic scoliosisSupport vector machineMedicineBraceClassifier (UML)RegressionTrunkArtificial intelligenceLinear regressionStatisticsComputer scienceMachine learningMathematicsInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A support vector classifier (SVC) approach was employed in predicting the risk of progression of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), a condition that causes visible trunk asymmetries. As the aetiology of AIS is unknown, its risk of progression can only be predicted from measured indicators. Previous studies suggest that individual indicators of AIS do not reliably predict its risk of progression. Complex indicators with better predictive values have been developed but are unsuitable for clinical use as obtaining their values is often onerous, involving much skill and repeated measurements taken over time. Based on the hypothesis that combining common indicators of AIS using an SVC approach would produce better prediction results more quickly, we conducted a study using three datasets comprising a total of 44 moderate AIS patients (30 observed, 14 treated with brace). Of the 44 patients, 13 progressed less than 5 degrees and 31 progressed more than 5 degrees. One dataset comprised all the patients. A second dataset comprised all the observed patients and a third comprised all the brace-treated patients. Twenty-one radiographic and clinical indicators were obtained for each patient. The result of testing on the three datasets showed that the system achieved 100% accuracy in training and 65%-80% accuracy in testing. It outperformed a "statistically equivalent" logistic regression model and a stepwise linear regression model on the said datasets. It took less than 20 min per patient to measure the indicators, input their values into the system, and produce the needed results, making the system viable for use in a clinical environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Information Technology in BiomedicineSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207