Vertebral scalloping in neurofibromatosis type 1: a quantitative approach.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate quantitative differences in vertebral scalloping between children who have scoliosis with and without neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). DESIGN: A retrospective study. SETTING: A university-affiliated children's hospital. PATIENTS: Twenty-seven children with scoliosis, 13 of whom had NF1 and 14 of whom did not. METHOD: Existing radiographs of the lumbar vertebrae were used to measure and compare the degree of vertebral scalloping. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The distribution of posterior scalloping ratios in the 2 groups and the most extreme ratio in each subject in each group were compared. RESULTS: Scalloping ratios from the children with NF1 were not normally distributed: 31% had ratios greater than 1.20. Scalloping ratios from the non-NF1 children were normally distributed, with a mean ratio (and standard deviation) of 1.13 (0.03). The distribution between the 2 groups was significantly different (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In children who have scoliosis but no NF1 there was a range of mild scalloping whereas those with NF1 has severe scalloping. Further studies are needed to determine the possible role of vertebral scalloping in scoliosis severity and progression in children who have NF1.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".