MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392163284 · doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000004971

Primary Pelvic Anteversion

2024· article· en· W4392163284 on OpenAlexaff
Alice Baroncini, Louis Boissière, Çağlar Yılgör, Daniel Larrieu, Ahmet Alanay, Ferrán Pellisé, Frank Kleinstueck, Javier Pizones, Yann Philippe Charles, Cécile Roscop, Anouar Bourghli, Ibrahim Obeid

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsMedtronic (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePrimary (astronomy)Pelvic girdleSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To identify the best definition of primary anteverted pelvis in the setting of adult spine deformity (ASD), and to investigate whether this is a pathologic setting that requires surgical correction. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: While pelvic retroversion has been thoroughly investigated, pelvic anteversion (AP) is a far lesser discussed topic. Four different AP definitions have been proposed, and AP has been described as a normal or pathologic entity by different authors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients consulting for ASD at the five participating sites were included. First, the four definitions of AP were compared with descriptive statistics (anatomic method-Pelvic Tilt <0°; Relative Pelvic Version method-RPV >5°; Roussouly method-Pelvic Incidence (PI)<50° and Sacral Slope (SS)>35°); low PT method-PT/PI <25th percentile). Second a subgroup analysis among operated AP patients with a two-year follow-up was performed. Complication rate, radiographic parameters, and clinical scores (ODI, SF-36) were compared in a multivariate analysis between patients who did and did not maintain an AP at the 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 1163 patients were available for the first analysis. The RPV method seemed to be the most appropriate to define AP in ASD patient. For the second analysis, data on 410 subjects were available, and most of them were young adults with idiopathic scoliosis that did not require pelvic fixation. AP patients who maintained an AP after ASD surgery presented comparable radiographic and clinical outcomes to the patients who presented a normoverted/retroverted pelvis after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of the presented study, the RPV method is the most appropriate to define primary AP, which is not a pathologic condition and is most often observed in young adults with idiopathic scoliosis. Anteverted pelvis does not require direct surgical correction in this patient group.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207