Concave and convex growth do not differ over tethered vertebral segments, even with open tri-radiate cartilage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the following hypotheses related to vertebral body tethering (VBT): 1. VBT is associated with asymmetric (concave > convex) increases in height over the instrumented vertebra. 2. The instrumented Cobb angle improves following VBT surgery with growth. METHODS: This is a retrospective case series of pediatric patients from a multicenter scoliosis registry treated with VBT between 2013 to 2021. INCLUSION CRITERIA: patients with standing radiographs at < 4 months and ≥ 2 years after surgery. Distances between the superior endplate of the UIV and the inferior endplate of the LIV were measured at the concave corner, mid-point, and convex corner of the endplates. The UIV-LIV angle was recorded. Subgroup analyses included comparing different Risser scores and tri-radiate cartilage (TRC) closed versus open using student t-tests. RESULTS: 83 patients met inclusion criteria (92% female; age at time of surgery 12.5 ± 1.4 years) with mean follow-up time of 3.8 ± 1.4 years. Risser scores at surgery were: 0 (n = 33), 1 (n = 12), 2 (n = 10), 3 (n = 11), 4 (n = 12), and 5 (n = 5). Of the 33 Risser 0 patients, 17 had an open TRC, 16 had a closed TRC. The UIV-LIV distance at concave, middle, and convex points significantly increased from immediate post-op to final-follow-up for Risser 0 patients, but not for Risser 1-5 patients. Increases in UIV-LIV distance were not significantly different between concave, middle, and convex points for all groups. There was no significant improvement or worsening in UIV-LIV angle for any group. CONCLUSION: At a mean of 3.8 years following VBT, 33 Risser 0 patients demonstrated significant growth in the instrumented segment, though there was no difference between concave or convex growth, even for patients with open TRC.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".