Immediate effects of scoliosis-specific corrective exercises on the Cobb angle after one week and after one year of practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are unaware of any studies describing the immediate effects of scoliosis-specific exercises on the Cobb angle measured by radiograph. This study aimed to describe the differences between radiographs obtained with and without corrective exercises after initial training and after one year. A female with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis was first seen at age 13 years, 0 months with a Risser 0. She had a 43 o left lumbar, 15 o right thoracic curve. She was seen again after 6, 18 and 30 months and performed exercises from 18 to 30 months. She performed Barcelona Scoliosis Physical Therapy School (BSPTS) exercises for a four-curve type (lumbar dominant with pelvis deviation to the lumbar concave side). At 18 and 30 months, x-rays were obtained with and without performing corrective exercises. At 6 months, her lumbar and thoracic curves measured 41 o and 28 o , respectively. At 18 months, her lumbar and thoracic curves measured 47 o and 30 o , respectively. Also at 18 months, immediately after her x-ray in the relaxed standing position, she performed her corrective exercises in standing with arms lowered for a second x-ray. Her lumbar and thoracic curves remained similar and measured 43 o and 32 o , respectively. At 30 months, she performed unsolicited corrective exercises during the x-ray. Her lumbar and thoracic curves measured 26 o and 41 o , respectively. Another x-ray in the relaxed position revealed lumbar and thoracic curves measuring 39 o and 35 o , respectively. The immediate effect of corrective exercises after a year of training was a 33 % improvement at the lumbar spine compared to only a 9 % improvement the previous year. After initial training, corrective exercises during a standing x-ray did not significantly improve the Cobb angle for the major lumbar curve compared to the relaxed standing x-ray. However, a year after performing exercises, unsolicited corrective exercises resulted in a significantly improved Cobb angle compared to relaxed standing for the curve primarily targeted by the exercise program. Improved exercise ability and spinal flexibility may have contributed to the improved Cobb angle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".