Sagittal Full-Spine vs. Sectional Cervical Lateral Radiographs: Are the Measurements of Cervical Alignment Interchangeable?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: This study assessed the relationship between cervical spine parameters taken on standing full-spine lateral radiographic images compared to sectional lateral cervical radiographs. (2) Methods: Full-spine (FS) and sectional lateral cervical (LC) radiographs from four spine treatment facilities across the USA retrospectively provided data collected on 220 persons to assess the comparison of three sagittal cervical radiographic measurements between the two views. The measures included cervical lordosis using the absolute rotation angle from C2-C7, sagittal cervical translation of C2-C7, and atlas plane angle to horizontal. Linear correlation and R2 models were used for statistical comparison of the measures for the two views. (3) Results: The mean values of the three measurements were statistically different from each other: C2-C7 translation (FS = 19.84 ± 11.98 vs. LC = 21.18 ± 11.8), C2-C7 lordosis (FS = −15.3 ± 14.63 vs. LC = −18.32 ± 13.16), and atlas plane (FS = −19.99 ± 8.88 vs. LC = −22.56 ± 8.93), where all values were p < 0.001. Weak-to-moderate-to-strong correlations existed between the full-spine and sectional lateral cervical radiographic variables. The R2 values varied based on the measurement were R2 = 0.768 (p < 0.001) for sagittal cervical translation of C2-C7 (strong), R2 = 0.613 (p < 0.001) for the absolute rotation angle C2-C7 (moderate), and R2 = 0.406 (p < 0.001) for the atlas plane line (weak). Though a linear correlation was identified, there were consistent intra-person differences between the measurements on the full spine versus sectional lateral cervical radiographic views, where the full-spine view consistently underestimated the magnitude of the variables. (4) Conclusion: Key sagittal cervical radiographic measurements on the full spine versus sectional lateral cervical radiographic views show striking intra-person differences. The findings of this study confirm that full spine versus sectional lateral cervical radiographic views provide different biomechanical magnitudes of cervical sagittal alignment, and caution should be exercised by health care providers as these are not interchangeable. We recommend the LC view for measurement of cervical sagittal alignment variables.
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 | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".