Spondylolisthesis, Sacro-Pelvic Morphology, and Orientation in Young Gymnasts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional evaluation of sacro-pelvic morphology and orientation as well as spondylolisthesis prevalence in a cohort of young gymnasts. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of spondylolisthesis in a cohort of gymnasts, as well as the associated demographic characteristics and sacro-pelvic morphology and orientation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Numerous studies have shown that sagittal sacro-pelvic morphology and orientation is abnormal in spondylolisthesis. Sacro-pelvic morphology and orientation in gymnasts and their relationship with spondylolisthesis have never been analyzed. METHODS: Radiologic evaluation of 92 gymnasts was performed to identify spondylolisthesis, and to measure pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, sacral slope, and sacral table angle. In the presence of spondylolisthesis, the slip percentage was measured. Different demographic and training characteristics were evaluated. Radiographic parameters were compared with reference values published for asymptomatic children and adolescents, and for subjects with spondylolisthesis. RESULTS: A 6.5% prevalence of spondylolisthesis was found in our cohort. The weekly training schedule was the only statistically significant different demographic characteristic between the 2 groups, at 20.6±5.4 versus 14.4±5.6 h/wk for subjects with and without spondylolisthesis, respectively. Pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, sacral slope, and sacral table angle were 69±20, 15±13, 54±11, and 88±7 degrees in gymnasts with spondylolisthesis, and 53±11, 10±6, 43±9, and 94±6 degrees in gymnasts without spondylolisthesis, respectively. When compared with asymptomatic individuals, pelvic incidence and pelvic tilt were slightly superior in gymnasts without spondylolisthesis. Pelvic incidence, sacral slope, and sacral table angle were significantly different between gymnasts with and without spondylolisthesis. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of spondylolisthesis in young gymnasts was similar to that observed in the general population. Sagittal sacro-pelvic morphology and orientation was abnormal in gymnasts with spondylolisthesis. Sagittal sacro-pelvic morphology and orientation was also slightly different in gymnasts without spondylolisthesis when compared with the normal population. The present study supports an association between spondylolisthesis and abnormal sacro-pelvic orientation and morphology.
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) | 0.000 | 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".