MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809664810 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0198792

Factors influencing spinal curvature measurements on ultrasound images for children with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS)

2018· article· en· W2809664810 on OpenAlexafffund
Rui Zheng, Doug Hill, Douglas Hedden, James Mahood, Marc Moreau, Sarah Southon, Edmond Lou

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of AlbertaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsRadiographyMedicineScoliosisCobb angleOrthodonticsUltrasoundDemographicsNuclear medicineLumbarIdiopathic scoliosisCurvatureCorrelationIsometric exerciseRadiologyMathematicsSurgeryPhysical therapyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The measurements of spinal curvatures using the ultrasound (US) imaging method on children with scoliosis have been comparable with radiography. However, factors influencing the reliability and accuracy of US measurement have not been studied. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of curve features and patients' demographics on US measurements and to determine which factors influence the reliability and accuracy. Two hundred children with scoliosis were recruited and scanned with US by one experienced operator and three trainees. One experienced rater measured the proxy Cobb angles from US images twice one week apart and compared the results with clinical radiographic records. The correlation and accuracy between the US and radiographic measurements were subdivided by different curve severities, curve types, subjects' weight status and US acquisition experiences. A total of 326 and 313 curves were recognized from radiographs and US images, respectively. The mean Cobb angles of the 13 missing curves were 17.4±7.4° and 11 at the thoracic region. Among the 16 curves showing large discrepancy (≥6°) between US and radiographic measurements, 7 were main thoracic and 6 were lumbar curves. Twelve had axial vertebral rotation (AVR) greater than 8°. The US scans performed by the experienced operator showed fewer large discrepancy curves, smaller difference and higher correlation than the scans from the trainees (3%, 1.7±1.5°, 0.95 vs 6%, 2.4±1.8°, 0.90). Only 4% missing and 5% large discrepancy curves were demonstrated for US measurements in comparison to radiography. The missing curves were mainly caused by small severity and in the upper spinal region. There was a higher chance of the large discrepancy curves in the main thoracic and lumbar regions with AVR>8°. A skilled operator acquired better US images and led to more accurate measurements especially for those subjects with larger curvatures, AVR and body mass index (BMI).

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)0.017
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.017
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations37
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207