Three-dimensional Spine Parameters Can Differentiate Between Progressive and Nonprogressive Patients With AIS at the Initial Visit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knowledge concerning morphology of the spine is reported in 2-dimensional (2D) or focuses on modification of parameters with progression of spinal deformation. The objective of this study was to compare 3-dimensional (3D) morphologic parameters of the spine at the first visit between progressive and a nonprogressive group of immature adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). METHODS: The first group was made up of surgically corrected AIS patients (E) (n=19), whereas the second group was composed of nonprogressive AIS that had reached skeletal maturity (n=18). Computerized measurements were undertaken on reconstructed 3D spines. There were 5 categories of measurement: Cobb angles (scoliosis, kyphosis, lordosis), 3D wedging (apical vertebra, mean 2 apical disks), rotation (upper and lower junctional vertebra, apical vertebra, and disk), torsion, and slenderness (height/width ratio of T6, L4, and T1-L5). Nonparametric Mann-Whitney tests were also undertaken. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the 2 groups for age, 3D Cobb angle, lordosis, and kyphosis. Mean 3D wedging of the apical disks, lower junctional vertebral axial rotation, torsion and T6, and whole spine height/width ratio were all significantly affected. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the theory that wedging begins in the disks and then in the vertebral body and identifies 3D morphologic parameters that could be used in the prediction of AIS evolution. The findings in the junctional area illustrate that a torsional deformity seems to occur distally from the apex and creates a progressive scoliosis. Curve progression could be predicted based on 3D morphometric parameters, as early as the initial visit.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".