MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2400323232 · doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000001708

Impact of Living With Scoliosis: A utility Outcome Score Assessment

2016· article· en· W2400323232 on OpenAlexaff
Sultan Aldebeyan, Hani Sinno, Asim M. Makhdom, Jean Ouellet, Neil Saran

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScoliosisVisual analogue scalePhysical therapyIdiopathic scoliosisTest (biology)Logistic regressionHealth careSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Survey. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to objectify the burden of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) to better advocate for scoliosis care in the future. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: AIS is a common spinal deformity that can affect individuals on many levels. Patients with big curves usually seek medical advice for surgical correction of their deformity. METHODS: Participants completed an online questionnaire to help measure the health burden of AIS. Three utility outcome measures were then calculated. These included the visual analog scale, time trade off, and standard gamble. Student t test and linear regression were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: One hundred and ten participants were included in the analysis. The mean visual analog scale, time trade off, and standard gamble scores for AIS were 0.77 ± 0.16, 0.90 ± 0.11, and 0.91 ± 0.13, respectively. Factors such as age, sex, income, and level of education were dependent predictors of utility scores for AIS. CONCLUSION: Our participants demonstrated a significant perceived burden of AIS. If faced with AIS, participants were willing to sacrifice 3.6 years of their lives and undergo a procedure with 9% mortality rate to gain perfect health. Such findings can guide future allocation of resources for better scoliosis care and management. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207