Comparison of physiological and behavioral nutrition-related factors in people with and without adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, from cohort data at 8 to 20 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nutrition-related variables including lower body mass index (BMI), lower bone mineral density (BMD), altered body composition and hormone levels have been reported in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). The aims of this study were to determine if physiological and behavioral nutrition-related factors differ between people with and without AIS, and to quantify their relationship with AIS, in unbiased cohort sample. BMI, presence of an eating disorder, leptin, adiponectin, BMD, vitamin D, lean mass, and fat mass were compared between those with and without AIS at ages 8, 10, 14, 17, and 20 years, and multiple logistic regression was performed between these variables and AIS. Lower total body BMD (median, 1.0 g/cm2 vs 1.1 g/cm2; p = .03) and lean mass (median, 38.8 kg vs 46.0 kg; p = .04) at age 20 years were observed in those with AIS compared to those without scoliosis. At age 20, the odds of AIS were 3.23 times higher for adolescents with an eating disorder compared to those with no eating disorder (95% CI, 1.02–8.63) when adjusted for BMI. Every 1 kg/m2 increase in BMI decreased the odds of AIS by 0.88 times (95% CI, 0.76–0.98), after adjusting for eating disorder diagnosis. In conclusion, lower BMI in mid-adolescence and presence of eating disorder outcomes, lower BMD, and lower lean mass in late adolescence were associated with the presence of AIS. Current data do not explain the mechanisms for these associations but suggest that serum leptin, adiponectin, and vitamin D are unlikely to be contributing factors. Conclusive determination of the prevalence of eating disorders in AIS will require further studies with larger sample sizes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".