Differences between Male and Female Sagittal Spinopelvic Parameters and Alignment in Asymptomatic Pediatric and Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Only a few studies have analyzed differences in the spinopelvic alignments between male and female. 98 healthy girls and boys were evaluated. Their spinopelvic parameters measured and compared via X-Ray radiography in standing posture. Investigated Parameters were thoracic kyphosis (T1-T12), lumbar lordosis (L1-L5), thoracic tilt (TT), lumbar tilt (LT), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), sacral slope (SS) and sagittal balance (SB). Quantitative data is reported by mean ± SD and ranges and frequency. Student t-test used to determine relation between parameters. P<0.05 considered significant. 48 girls (49%) and 50 boys (51%) were evaluated. Mean height & weight were 153.6 ± 15.6 cm and 49.9 ± 13.1 kg, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in spinal (TK, TT, LT) or the pelvic and spinopelvic parameters (PI, SS, PT), between the sexes except lumbar lordosis (LL). Spinal balance parameters (SB) were not found to be significantly different between males and females; LL was higher in females. LL in males was 36.6 and in females were 42.77. (P value = 0.013). We found no significant differences in spinal and spinopelvic parameters and Spinal balance parameter between the sexes in age 8-19 years, except lumbar lordosis (LL) that was higher in female group.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".