MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2486787648

PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH SURGEONS’ RATINGS OF PHYSICAL DEFORMITY IN ADOLESCENT IDIOPATHIC SCOLIOSIS (AIS).

2008· article· en· W2486787648 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sandra Donaldson, Douglas Hedden, Derek Stephens, Benjamin A. Alman, Andrew Howard, J. Wright

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWaistCobb angleScoliosisPhysical therapyDeformityIdiopathic scoliosisRadiographyBody mass indexSurgeryOrthodonticsInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Five surgeons independently rated clinical photographs of forty patients with AIS. Ratings of shoulder blades, shoulder symmetry, and waist symmetry were related to “overall appearance”, and were also correlated with rib prominence and Cobb angle. Because the components of surgeons’ ratings of appearance differed, this may lead to inconsistent recommendations regarding surgery. To identify patient characteristics associated with surgeons’ ratings of patient physical deformity in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS). Five surgeons independently rated clinical photographs of forty patients with AIS. Surgeons separately rated the appearance of patients’ shoulder blades, shoulder symmetry, waist symmetry and also rated their “overall appearance ” [in five categories from zero (best) to five (worst)]. The following clinical and radiographic data was also collected: rib prominence, vertebral rotation, shoulder height, spinal imbalance, Cobb angle, age, sex, and body mass index. Surgeons’ mean rating for “overall appearance” was moderately correlated with rib prominence (r = 0.48), vertebral rotation (r = 0.44) and Cobb angle (r = 0.53). Surgeons’ rating of patients’ “overall appearance” was affected by each of: shoulder blades (p = 0.001), shoulder symmetry (p = 0.01) and waist symmetry (p = 0.001). However, each surgeon weighted components of patients’ appearance differently to arrive at their overall rating of appearance (p Because patients’ physical appearance is an important element of surgical decision making, differences among surgeons could be contributing to inconsistent recommendations. Surgeons’ ratings of physical appearance are based on surgeons’ ratings of patients’ shoulder blades, waist symmetry and shoulder symmetry but surgeons weight those elements differently. Surgeon decision making is complicated. It is based on radiographs and subjective assessment. Patients’ appearance undoubtedly influences surgeon recommendation for surgery. We need to clarify surgeons’ ratings and improve the criteria for surgeon decision making. Funding: This trial was funded by (in alphabetical order) The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, DePuyAcroMed-Johnson & Johnson Medical Products, and Synthes, Canada.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→