The impact of immediate in-brace 3D corrections on curve evolution after two years of treatment: preliminary results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the brace treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), in-brace correction and brace-wear compliance are well-documented parameters associated with a greater chance of treatment success. However, the number of studies on the impact of sagittal and transverse correction on curve evolution in the context of bracing is limited. The objective of this work was to evaluate how immediate inbrace correction in the three anatomical planes is related to long-term curve evolution after two years of bracing. We performed a retrospective analysis on 94 AIS patients followed for a minimum of two years. We analyzed correlations between in-brace correction and two-year out-of-brace evolution for Cobb and apical axial rotations (ARs) in the medial thoracic and thoraco-lumbar/lumbar regions (MT & TL/L). We also studied the association between the braces' kyphosing and lordosing effect and the evolution of thoracic kyphosis (TK) and lumbar lordosis (LL) after two years. Finally, we separated the patients into three groups based on their curve progression results after two years (corrected, stable and progressed) and compared the 3D in-brace corrections and compliance for each group. Coefficients were statistically significant for all correlations. They were weak for Cobb angles (MT: -0.242; TL/L: -0.275), low for ARs (MT: -0.423; TL/L: -0.417) and moderate for sagittal curves (TK: 0.549; LL: 0.482). In-brace coronal correction was significantly higher in corrected vs stable patients (p=0.004) while compliance was significantly higher in stable vs progressed patients (p=0.026). This study highlights the importance of initial in-brace correction in all three planes for successful treatment outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".