MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quantifying the ‘law of diminishing returns’ in magnetically controlled growing rods

2017· article· en· W2773512705 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Bone & Joint Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistractionRodMedicineCobb angleScoliosisDeformityFluoroscopyOrthodonticsNuclear medicineSurgeryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims Magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGRs) allow non-invasive correction of the spinal deformity in the treatment of early-onset scoliosis. Conventional growing rod systems (CGRS) need repeated surgical distractions: these are associated with the effect of the ‘law of diminishing returns’. The primary aim of this study was to quantify this effect in MCGRs over sequential distractions. Patients and Methods A total of 35 patients with a maximum follow-up of 57 months were included in the study. There were 17 boys and 18 girls with a mean age of 7.4 years (2 to 14). True Distraction (TD) was determined by measuring the expansion gap on fluoroscopy. This was compared with Intended Distraction (ID) and expressed as the ‘T/I’ ratio. The T/I ratio and the Cobb angle were calculated at several time points during follow-up. Results The mean follow-up was 30 months (6 to 57). There was a significant decrease in the mean T/I ratio over time (convex rod at 3 months 0.81, sd 0.58 vs 51 months 0.17, sd 0.16, p = 0.0001; concave rod at 3 months 0.93, sd 0.67 vs 51 months 0.18, sd 0.15, p = 0.0001). A linear decline of the mean T/I ratios was noted for both convex rods (r 2 = 0.90, p = 0.004) and concave rods (r 2 = 0.81, p = 0.015) over 51 months. At the 24-month follow-up stage, there was a significant negative correlation between the mean T/I ratio of the concave rod with weight (r = -0.59, p = 0.01), age (r = -0.59, p = 0.01), and BMI of the child (r = -0.54, p = 0.01). Conclusions The ‘law of diminishing returns’ is also seen after serial distraction using MCGR. Compared to previously published data for CGRS, there is a gradual linear decline rather than a rapid initial decline in lengthening. In older, heavier children a reduced distraction ratio in the concave rod of the MCGR device is noted over time. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1658–64.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.247 · 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