Timelines for returning to physical activity following pediatric spinal surgery: recommendations from the literature and preliminary data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Participation in physical activity and sports is known to have positive implications for physical health, and for social and emotional wellbeing of children. Following corrective spinal surgery for scoliosis, the timeline for the return to activities and sports varies from surgeon to surgeon and from location to location, and return to activities can be limited due to pain, fear, and decreased flexibility. It is critical that patients know best-practice guidelines, and it is equally critical that medical professionals know whether their patients are following those guidelines. This paper includes a summary of recommendations published in the literature, and a pilot study to address a gap in the literature on determining how long, post-surgery, adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis waited before returning to various self-care and physical activities, and what factors influenced return to activities. We used a mixed-method approach that involved two phases: a questionnaire (n = 8), and subsequent interviews of some participants (n = 3). Participants were ages 14-17 (M = 15.4) and had had posterior instrumentation and fusion for scoliosis in the past 2 years. RESULTS: Some patients were cautious about return to activities, either because of emotional or medical reasons. However, in many instances, participants returned to physical activities earlier than was recommended, primarily for emotional and social reasons.
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 | 0.029 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".