Evaluation of Reducibility of Trunk Asymmetry in Lateral Bending
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The value of the lateral bending test is important in the assessment of spinal curve mobility and prediction of surgical outcome in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). However, radiographic bending tests are unable to assess the reducibility of trunk asymmetry. This study aims to exploit surface topography measurement in order to evaluate the changes in shape of the trunk (a) between bending and neutral standing positions, and (b) between standing pre- and post-operative visits, in a cohort of adolescents with AIS having undergone surgical correction; and to correlate the differences measured in cases (a) and (b). Our cohort includes 13 patients with right thoracic AIS. Each patient had their 3D trunk surface digitized with a multi-head InSpeck system in standing posture (at the pre-op and post-op visits) and in maximum voluntary right and left bending (at the pre-op visit). We developed a novel trunk shape analysis method which produces a set of inclined trunk cross-sections allowing comparison between different postures. Two asymmetry indices, trunk rotation (TR) and back surface rotation (BSR), were computed in all cases and a statistical analysis was performed. Our correlation study (Pearson test) showed fair correlations in most cases between the changes in side-bending and those post-surgery, with the strongest relationship (p-value < 0.01) when combining the TR measurements from both bendings. These results provide evidence that the bending test can be used to assess trunk asymmetry reducibility. The proposed approach could provide a non-invasive trunk asymmetry reducibility test for routine clinical use in AIS surgery planning.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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".