MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315104905 · doi:10.1097/bsd.0000000000000082

Correction Capability in the 3 Anatomic Planes of Different Pedicle Screw Designs in Scoliosis Instrumentation

2014· article· en· W2315104905 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaoyu Wang, Carl‐Éric Aubin, John Coleman, Jeremy Rawlinson

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Spine Surgery A Spine Publication · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScoliosisInstrumentation (computer programming)Computer scienceOrthodonticsIdiopathic scoliosisMedicineMedical physicsEngineering drawingInformation retrievalSurgeryEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Computer simulations to compare the correction capabilities of different pedicle screws in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) instrumentations. OBJECTIVE: To compare the correction and resulting bone-screw forces associated with different pedicle screws in scoliosis instrumentations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Pedicle screw fixation is widely used in surgical instrumentation for spinal deformity treatment. Screw design, correction philosophies, and surgical techniques are constantly evolving to achieve better control of the vertebrae and correction of the spinal deformity. Yet, there remains a lack of biomechanical studies that quantify the effects and advantages of different screw designs in terms of correction kinematics. METHODS: The correction capabilities of fixed-angle, multiaxial, uniaxial, and saddle axial screws were kinematically analyzed, simulated, and compared. These simulations were based on the screw patterns and correction techniques proposed by 2 experienced surgeons for 2 AIS cases. Additional instrumentations were assessed to compare the correction and resulting bone-screw forces associated with each type of screw. RESULTS: The fixed-angle, uniaxial and saddle axial screws had similar kinematic behavior and performed better than multiaxial screws in the coronal and transverse planes (8% and 30% greater simulated corrections, respectively). Uniaxial and multiaxial screws were less effective than fixed-angle and saddle axial screws in transmitting compression/distraction to the anterior spine because of their sagittal plane mobility between the screw head and shank. Only the saddle axial screws allow vertebra angle in the sagittal plane to be independently adjusted. CONCLUSIONS: Pedicle screws of different designs performed differently for deformity corrections or for compensating screw placement variations in different anatomic planes. For a given AIS case, screw types should be determined based on the particular instrumentation objectives, the deformity's stiffness and characteristics so as to make the best of the screw designs.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Spine Surgery A Spine PublicationSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207