Canadian Spine SocietyCPSS-1. Abstract ID 108. Radiographic reporting in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: Is there a discrepancy between radiologists’ reports and surgeons’ assessments?CPSS-2. Abstract ID 21. Pediatric posterior spinal deformity correction: 30-day postoperative infection rate and risk factorsCPSS-3. Abstract ID 17. “Ultra-low dose” computed tomography without sedation is feasible and should be considered as part of the preoperative optimization pathway in paediatric patients with neuromuscular scoliosisCPSS-4. Abstract ID 20. SeeSpine: a novel surface topography smartphone application for monitoring curve progression in adolescent idiopathic scoliosisCPSS-5. Abstract ID 78. Pilot study: a machine learning algorithm for the detection of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis from images taken with modern smartphone technologyCPSS-6. Abstract ID 101. Preoperative parameters influencing vertebral body tethering outcomes: patient characteristics play an important role in determining the outcomes at 2 years after surgeryCPSS-7. Abstract ID 63. Preoperative bending radiographs are the best predictor of scoliosis correction on the first erect radiograph in vertebral body tethering: a single-centre retrospective studyCPSS-8. Abstract ID 18. Adverse events after zoledronate infusion in medically complex patients with neuromuscular scoliosisCPSS-9. Abstract ID 5. Sequential rod rolling for surgical correction of Lenke type 2 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a 3D analysisCPSS-10. Abstract ID 123. A comparative study of protocols for spinal casting as a surgical delay strategy in severe early-onset scoliosisA-11. Abstract ID 50. Does the type of pelvic fixation affect pelvic incidence after adult spinal deformity surgery? A retrospective analysisA-12. Abstract ID 51. How does pelvic fixation affect the compensatory mechanisms after adult spinal deformity surgery? A retrospective analysisA-13. Abstract ID 44. Development of a biomechanical model to identify risk factors in sagittal alignment contributing to proximal junctional kyphosisA-14. Abstract ID 32. Biomechanical characterization of semirigid constructs and the potential effect on proximal junctional kyphosisA-15. Abstract ID 65. Early adjacent disc characteristics are not associated with reoperation in short-segment lumbar fusionsA-16. Abstract ID 39. Concurrent validation of a novel inertial measurement unit–based method to evaluate spinal motion in clinical settingsA-17. Abstract ID 68. Distal lordosis is associated with reoperation for adjacent segment disease in patients with degenerative lumbar fusionA-18. Abstract ID 69. Automatic extraction of spinopelvic parameters using artificial intelligence methods and a review on the effects of spine stiffness, spinal fusion and spinopelvic parameters on lower limb motion and total hip arthroplasty outcomesA-19. Abstract ID 38. Gender differences in fusion rates in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: analysis from the CSORN prospective degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis studyA-20. Abstract ID 29. L3–4 hyperlordosis after a reduction in lower lumbar lordosis with L4–L5 fusion surgery is common in patients requiring L3–4 revision surgery for adjacent segment diseaseB-21. Abstract ID 40. Predictors of dynamic instability in the decision to fuse in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: results from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network prospective degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesisstudyB-22. Abstract ID 49. Impact of preoperative insomnia on poor postoperative pain control after elective spine surgery and the Modified Calgary Postoperative Pain After Spine Surgery scoreB-23. Abstract ID 115. Influence of high pelvic incidence on operative difficulty in patients treated surgically for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesisB-24. Abstract ID 45. Reoperation rates for adjacent segment disease in degenerative lumbar fusion surgery: a comparison between minimally invasive versus open surgical approachesB-25. Abstract ID 118. Assessment of changes in opioid utilization 1 year after elective spine surgery: a Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network studyB-26. Abstract ID 93. Preoperative neuroleptic and opioid use effects on postoperative pain and disability after spinal surgery for lumbar radiculopathyB-27. Abstract ID 52. The importance of lower extremity compensation mechanisms in lumbar degenerative pathology: a retrospective analysisB-28. Abstract ID 107. Persistent poor sleep is associated with worse pain and quality of life in patients with degenerative thoracolumbar conditions undergoing surgery: a retrospective cohort studyB-29. Abstract ID 126. Opioid use in low back pain is associated with increased utilization of health care services and likelihood of work absenteeismB-30. Abstract ID 53. Wait times for degenerative lumbar spine consultation and surgery: a repeated cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research NetworkC-31. Abstract ID 33. Pati
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cobb angle measurement is a standard method for quantification of scoliosis in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).Clinicians rely on Cobb angle measurements to guide treatment decisions.Timely and accurate diagnosis at the primary care level is required to screen patients eligible for timesensitive brace treatment, which is typically delivered in the tertiary care setting.Therefore, accurate and reliable measurement of Cobb angle at the community level is crucial.This study investigated the agreement in Cobb angle measurement between radiologist and the treating spine surgeon.Methods: A retrospective audit of radiographs for patients with AIS was performed.A random sample of 80 patients was selected and radiographic reports (Cobb angle, Risser stage and end vertebrae) by radiologists and spine surgeons were compared.To assess interrater reliability, interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed.Interclass correlation coefficients < 0.70, 0.70-0.79,0.80-89, and 0.9-0.99 were considered poor, fair, good and excellent reliability, respectively.All radiographs were assessed for quality.Results: The agreement of Cobb angle between spine surgeons was excellent (ICC 0.96, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.97).The agreement between spine surgeons and radiologists was poor (ICC 0.65, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.97).The ICC between spine surgeons and community radiologists and pediatric radiologists was poor (ICC 0.45, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) and good (ICC 0.87, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.96), respectively.However, 35 out of 80 radiographs performed did not meet the standard criteria.Risser stage was not reported in 56 of the 80 radiology reports.Interclass correlation coefficients between spine surgeons and radiologists for Risser stage was poor (ICC 0.625, 95% CI 0.325 to 0.794).For end vertebrae identification, there was absolute agreement of end vertebrae identification in 23 of the 80 scans.Conclusion: This study demonstrated a significant disagreement in Cobb angle measurement between radiologists and spine surgeons, which may negatively affect referral wait times and timely treatment for AIS.Quality improvement initiatives, such as continuing medical education, to improve Cobb angle measurement among community radiologists is required to improve scoliosis screening at the primary care level.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.120 | 0.030 |
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".