Body Image and Quality-of-Life in Untreated Versus Brace-Treated Females With Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: The Bracing in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Trial (BrAIST) included skeletally immature high-risk patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) with moderate curve sizes (20°- 40°). BrAIST was a multicenter, controlled trial using both randomized and preference treatment arms into either an observation group or a brace treatment group. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze and compare body image and quality-of-life (QOL) in female AIS patients who were observed or treated with a brace. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Brace treatment is an effective means for controlling progressive scoliosis and preventing the need for surgery, but there is no consensus regarding the effect of brace treatment on body image or on QOL in adolescents with AIS. METHODS: Data from female BrAIST patients in the randomized (n = 132) or preference (n = 187) arms and were observed (n = 120) or brace treated (n = 199) were analyzed. Patients completed the Spinal Appearance Questionnaire (SAQ) and the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQOL) 4.0 Generic Scales at baseline and 6 month follow-up visits up to 2 years. Items on the SAQ measured three body image constructs (self, ideal, and overall). The PedsQOL measured health, activities, feelings, social factors, and school. RESULTS: . In general, there were no significant differences within or between study arms or treatments regarding body image or QOL through 2 years of follow-up. Poorer body image was significantly correlated with poorer QOL during the first 2 years of follow-up regardless of study arm or treatment. Patients who crossed-over to a different treatment and patients with largest Cobb angles ≥ 40 degrees had significantly poorer body image, in particular self-body image, compared with those that did not. CONCLUSION: This study does not support findings from previous research indicating that wearing a brace has a negative impact on or is negatively impacted by body image or QOL. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".