MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765465172 · doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000002465

Implant Density at the Apex Is More Important Than Overall Implant Density for 3D Correction in Thoracic Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Using Rod Derotation and En Bloc Vertebral Derotation Technique

2017· article· en· W2765465172 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Delikaris, Xiaoyu Wang, Laure Boyer, A. Noelle Larson, Charles Gerald T. Ledonio, Carl‐Éric Aubin

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustinePolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronal planeSagittal planeMedicineOrthodonticsScoliosisInstrumentation (computer programming)Idiopathic scoliosisBone densityThoracic vertebraeImplantSurgeryLumbar vertebraeAnatomyLumbarOsteoporosisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical analysis of 3D correction and bone-screw forces through numerical simulations of scoliosis instrumentation with different pedicle screw patterns. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effect of different screw densities and distributions on 3D correction and bone-screw forces in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) instrumentation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Instrumentation constructs with various numbers of pedicle screws and patterns have been proposed for thoracic AIS instrumentation. However, systematic biomechanical studies have not yet been completed on the appropriate screw patterns for optimal 3D correction. METHODS: Patient-specific biomechanical models of the spine were created for 10 AIS cases (Lenke 1). For each case, surgical instrumentation patterns were computationally simulated using respectively a reference screw pattern (two screws per level fused) and six alternative screw patterns with fewer screws. Simulated surgical maneuvers and model definition were unchanged between simulations except the number and distribution of screws. 3D correction and bone-screw forces were compared. RESULTS: A total of 140 posterior instrumentations were computationally simulated. Mean corrections in the coronal and sagittal planes with alternative screw patterns were within 4° to the reference pattern. Increasing screw density in the apical region from one to two screws per level improved percent apical vertebral rotation (AVR) correction (r = 0.887, P < 0.05). Average bone-screw force associated with the reference screw pattern was 243N ± 54N and those with the alternative screw patterns were 11% to 48% lower. CONCLUSION: Compared with the reference maximal screw density pattern, alternative screw patterns allowed similar corrections in the coronal and sagittal planes. AVR correction was strongly correlated with screw density in the apical region; AVR correction varied significantly with screw patterns of the same overall screw density when an en bloc vertebral derotation technique was simulated. High screw density tended to overconstrain the instrumented spine and resulted in higher forces at the bone-screw interface. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations38
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207