MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244256291 · doi:10.1186/1748-7161-10-s1-o64

Prescriptive analytics applied to brace treatment for AIS: a pilot demonstration

2015· article· en· W4244256291 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Chalmers, Doug Hill, Vicky Zhao, Edmond Lou

Bibliographic record

VenueScoliosis · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBraceMedicineAnalyticsMedical physicsBioinformaticsData scienceComputational biologyComputer scienceEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prescriptive analytics is a concept which combines statistical and computer science underpinnings to prescribe an optimal course of action, based on predictions of possible future events. This concept was used to recommend optimal in-brace correction for scoliosis patients. Our objectives were to estimate the efficacy of these recommendations, and formulate improved brace design protocols. A fuzzy model (Chalmers et al, 2013) was developed using data from 90 AIS patients who had finished treatment (60 full-time braces and 30 nighttime. Rates of 6-degree-or-more progression were 53% for daytime braces and 30% for nighttime). The model used clinical measurements taken at the start of treatment to predict whether a given patient's deformity will progress during treatment. The model predicted individual patients' outcomes for a range of in-brace corrections. These predictions were used to recommend the patient's 'optimal' in-brace correction - the point of diminishing returns, where increasing correction no longer improved the predicted outcome. The efficacy of the recommendations was estimated using a technique called 'clinical trial simulation' (Chi et al, 2012). This technique uses a statistical model to predict progression rate under the model-recommended treatment, and compares it to the progression rate, observed retrospectively, under the actual treatment. Model-recommended corrections ranged from 20%-58% for daytime braces and 65%-130% for nighttime braces, roughly corresponding with previous literature. Interestingly, in 37% of cases the recommendation was less than the correction which had actually been applied, suggesting some opportunity for less aggressive (more comfortable) braces without compromising treatment outcome. The clinical trial simulation estimated 26% fewer progressive cases using the model-recommended in-brace correction, over the actual correction observed retrospectively in the charts. The patients whose correction decreased under the model's recommendation did not show an increased progression rate. Optimal correction may be less than the maximum achievable correction. The preliminary results suggest that considering model-generated recommendations during brace fitting could improve outcomes. Future work will expand the system to recommend wear-times as well as corrections, improving its clinical relevance. We hope this pilot demonstration will promote development of model-based decision support in scoliosis treatment, and prompt discussion on its efficacy and future role.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScoliosisSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207