MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220689124 · doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000004353

Biomechanical Effects of Thoracolumbosacral Orthosis Design Features on 3D Correction in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis

2022· article· en· W4220689124 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPolytechnique MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdiopathic scoliosisScoliosisBiomechanicsRachisOrthotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter numerical study. OBJECTIVE: To biomechanically analyze and compare various passive correction features of braces, designed by several centers with diverse practices, for three-dimensional (3D) correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A wide variety of brace designs exist, but their biomechanical effectiveness is not clearly understood. Many studies have reported brace treatment correction potential with various degrees of control, making the objective comparison of correction mechanisms difficult. A Finite Element Model simulating the immediate in-brace corrective effects has been developed and allows to comprehensively assess the biomechanics of different brace designs. METHODS: Expert clinical teams (one orthotist and one orthopedist) from six centers in five countries participated in the study. For six scoliosis cases with different curve types respecting SRS criteria, the teams designed two braces according to their treatment protocol. Finite Element Model simulations were performed to compute immediate in-brace 3D correction and skin-to-brace pressures. All braces were randomized and labeled according to 21 design features derived from Society on Scoliosis Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Treatment proposed descriptors, including positioning of pressure points, orientation of push vectors, and sagittal design. Simulated in brace 3D corrections were compared for each design feature class using ANOVAs and linear regressions (significance P ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: Seventy-two braces were tested, with significant variety in the design approaches. Pressure points at the apical vertebra level corrected the main thoracic curve better than more caudal locations. Braces with ventral support flattened the lumbar lordosis. Lateral and ventral skin-to-brace pressures were correlated with changes in thoracolumbar/lumbar Cobb and lumbar lordosis (r =- 0.53, r = - 0.54). Upper straps positioned above T10 corrected the main thoracic Cobb better than those placed lower. CONCLUSIONS: The corrective features of various scoliosis braces were objectively compared in a systematic approach with minimal biases and variability in test parameters, providing a better biomechanical understanding of individual passive mechanisms' contribution to 3D correction.

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)0.003
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207