A new scoliosis brace padding method based on trunk asymmetry for scoliosis treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pressure pads are used with scoliosis braces to adjust the magnitude and location of corrective forces that mechanically support the torso to correct the spine deformity. In the conventional brace (C.B.) design approaches, the location and shape of pads are determined based on the visual assessment of the clinician. The accuracy of this approach could be improved because it is limited to the clinician's expertise. The present study aimed to develop a new brace (N.B.) padding method based on trunk asymmetry for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis and compare the efficacy of the developed method with C.B. in improving the Cobb angle and body posture symmetricity. METHODS: The trunk surface geometry was scanned using a 3-dimensional scanner. The best plane of symmetry was determined, and the original trunk was reflected in the plane of symmetry, creating the reflected trunk. The difference between the reflected and original trunks was computed and color-coded using deviation contour maps. The boundary of deformed regions, with a minimum of 6-mm deviation contour maps, was identified as the trim lines for brace pads. Eight participants were recruited and divided into conventional and new padding groups. The variation of Cobb angle and torso asymmetry parameters, including the trunk rotation and back surface rotation, as well as the brace satisfaction and trunk appearance perception of the 2 groups, were compared after 3 months of treatment. RESULTS: Cobb angle improved equally in the N.B. and C.B. groups. However, back surface rotation improved in the N.B. group (+49.6%) and worsened in the C.B. group (-6.8%). The mean trunk rotation was improved by 30% in the N.B. and further exacerbated by -2.2% in the C.B. group. The brace satisfaction and trunk appearance perception scores were higher in the N.B. than in the C.B. group, however not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed that the proposed brace padding system improved the trunk appearance without negatively affecting the Cobb angle 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".