Is The Boston Brace Mechanically Effective in AIS?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of three-point loading is thought to be the essential basis for effective bracing of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Care is taken to ensure that active pressure pad is located to provide maximum support to the apex of the scoliosis while minimizing its lordosising effect. Paradoxically, while cited as an essential factor in the design of braces, there is no consensus as to the importance of such loading to the clinical effectiveness of braces. It may be that braces are effective but that they are effective for reasons unrelated to mechanics. There are few studies that link brace mechanics and change in spinal alignment. Optimal bracing for AIS requires a much better understanding of the role of the mechanical support of braces used to treat AIS. Sixteen subjects, 3 males and 13 females, were participated to this study to determine the correlation between quantity and quality of brace wear and treatment outcomes in AIS. This study showed that the target force levels set for the active pad in braces prescribed for the treatment of AIS vary considerably and that brace applies the desired load 25% of the prescribed time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".