Thoracic Curve Correction Ratio: An Objective Measure to Guide against Overcorrection of a Main Thoracic Curve in the Setting of a Structural Proximal Thoracic Curve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The correction of double thoracic (Lenke 2) curves has been associated with higher rates of postoperative shoulder imbalance that may compromise long-term outcomes following spinal deformity correction. A number of methods have been proposed to mitigate this risk, though no accepted standard measurement exists. The purpose of this study is to validate a novel quantitative method of determining the relative curve correction magnitude in double thoracic curves. Methods: Retrospective data from a multi-center database of patients undergoing surgical correction of left-proximal thoracic, right-main thoracic Lenke 2 curves were analyzed. A novel measurement tool, the Thoracic Curve Correction Ratio (TCCR), was applied for the purposes of validation against historical data. Results: A total of 305 patients with complete two-year follow-up data were included. The TCCR, or the ratio of postoperative percent correction of the thoracic curves divided by the ratio of the preoperative curve magnitudes, displayed a significant negative correlation (Pearson R = −0.66; p < 0.001) with T1 tilt at two years postoperatively. Conclusions: The TCCR could be added as an important factor in the preoperative planning process and intraoperative assessment in order to reduce postoperative T1 tilt. While T1 tilt remains an imperfect surrogate measure for clinical shoulder balance, it serves as one of many potential measures that the surgeon may evaluate quantitatively and radiographically.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".