Results of Gensingen Bracing in Patients With Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Retrospective Cross-Sectional Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bracing is an essential part of scoliosis treatment. The standard of brace treatment for patients with scoliosis today is still very variable in terms of brace quality and outcome. The Gensingen brace is a further developed Chêneau brace derivative with individual design, which can be adapted through computer-aided design. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to generate a template to obtain a database for prospective multicenter studies study to analyze the results of high-corrective asymmetric Gensingen brace treatment for patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). METHODS: A template for the database was created, which contains the patients' basic data (age, menarcheal status, Risser Sign, curve pattern, and daily brace wearing time), the Cobb angles of curvature, and the cosmetically relevant angles of trunk rotation (ATR). A retrospective review of medical records of patients with AIS, who met the Scoliosis Research Society's inclusion criteria for brace studies, was performed to test the feasibility of the template. Template items were filled in by the researchers. RESULTS: (80% of in-brace correction). The Cobb angle of the major curvature changed as follows: curve stabilization was achieved in 7 (21.2%) cases, and curve improvement was achieved in 26 (78.8%) cases. None of the patients showed a curve progression. The Cobb angle was significantly reduced in the brace at the end of treatment and at follow-up evaluation (P<.001). ATR improved significantly for thoracic (P<.001) and lumbar curves (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The database proved to be informative in the assessment of radiological and clinical outcome parameters. The example data set we have generated can be a helpful tool for professionals who work in clinics but do not store regular patient data. Especially with regard to different patient collectives worldwide, different results may be achieved with the same standards of care. In addition, the results of this study suggest that above-average correction effects with a full-time brace application lead to significant improvements in the Cobb angle after brace treatment has been completed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".