Evaluation of Reducibility of Trunk Asymmetry in Lateral Bending
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it