Differences in Standing and Sitting Postures of Youth with Idiopathic Scoliosis from Quantitative Analysis of Digital Photographs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to explore whether differences in standing and sitting postures of youth with idiopathic scoliosis could be detected from quantitative analysis of digital photographs. Standing and sitting postures of 50 participants aged 10-20-years-old with idiopathic scoliosis (Cobb angle: 15° to 60°) were assessed from digital photographs using a posture evaluation software program. Based on the XY coordinates of markers, 13 angular and linear posture indices were calculated in both positions. Paired t-tests were used to compare values of standing and sitting posture indices. Significant differences between standing and sitting positions (p < 0.05) were found for head protraction, shoulder elevation, scapula asymmetry, trunk list, scoliosis angle, waist angles, and frontal and sagittal plane pelvic tilt. Quantitative analysis of digital photographs is a clinically feasible method to measure standing and sitting postures among youth with scoliosis and to assist in decisions on therapeutic interventions.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".