Relationships between Strap Tension, Interface Pressures and Spine Correction in Brace Treatment of Scoliosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Boston brace has been shown to efficiently prevent scoliosis curve progression. However, it rarely achieves complete 3-D correction; its adjustment being often empirical and its biomechanical modes of action still remaining poorly understood. This study investigates the in-brace spinal shape (correction) in relationship with the patient's out-of-brace deformation, and the adjustment parameters of the brace, namely the strap tensions and the equivalent forces calculated at the patient-brace interface. Many of the observed relationships illustrate the fact that the in-brace spinal shape is strongly related to the characteristics of the patient's out-of-brace deformation. The pattern of pressure distribution as described by the equivalent forces computed in the thoracic, lumbar, pelvic and sternal regions has important effect on the in-brace Cobb angles, lumbar lordosis, frontal and sagittal imbalances and the apical axial rotations. The complex role of the strap tension on the correction has not been explained and needs further investigation. This project has the potential to give insight into the biomechanical effects of brace treatment by providing a statistical model leading to more rational and personalized brace adjustments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".