How useful is pre-referral pediatric spine imaging?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Primary care physicians rely on radiology reports to confirm a scoliosis diagnosis and inform the need for spine specialist referral. In turn, spine specialists use these reports for triage decisions and planning of care. The objectives were to determine (1) the adequacy of index images to inform treatment decisions at the initial consultation and (2) the utility of index radiology reports for appropriate triage decisions. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted including all idiopathic scoliosis patients seen for initial consultation, aged three to 18 years, between January 1 and April 30, 2021. A score out of five was generated based on the adequacy of index images to provide accurate Cobb angle measurements and determine skeletal maturity. Index images were considered inadequate if repeat imaging was necessary. Index radiology reports, associated imaging, and new imaging, if obtained at the initial consultation, were compared. RESULTS: Of the 94 patients reviewed, 79% (n = 74) required repeat imaging at the initial consultation, of which 74% (n = 55) were due to insufficient quality and/or limited field of view. Of index images available for review at the initial consult (n = 80), 41.2% scored five out of five, and 32.5% scored two or below. Comparing index radiology reports to initial visit evaluation with ≤ 60 days between imaging (n = 49), discrepancies in Cobb angle were found in 24.5% (95% CI 14.6, 38.1) of patients. The Risser stage was reported in 14% of index radiology reports. CONCLUSION: Although pre-referral pediatric spine radiographs serve a diagnostic purpose, most are inadequate for comprehensive idiopathic scoliosis evaluation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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 | 0.003 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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, 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".