Concave or convex rod translation first in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis instrumentation with differential rod contouring?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective was to assess deformity correction and bone-screw force associated respectively with concave manipulation first, convex manipulation first, and different differential rod contouring configurations. Instrumentation scenarios were computationally simulated for 10 AIS cases with mean thoracic Cobb angle (MT) of 54±8°, apical vertebral rotation (AVR) of 19±2° and thoracic kyphosis of 21±9°. Instrumentations with major correction maneuvers using the concave side rod were first simulated; instrumentations with major correction maneuvers using the convex side rod were then simulated. Simulated correction maneuvers were concave/convex rod translation followed by apical vertebral derotation and then convex/concave rod translation. There were no significant differences in deformity corrections and bone-screw forces between concave rod translation first and convex rod translation first with differential rod contouring. Increasing differential rod contouring angle and concave rod diameter improved AVR correction and increased the TK and bone-screw forces; the effect on the MT Cobb angle was not clinically significant.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".