MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396528705 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0302577

Effect of adding Schroth physiotherapeutic scoliosis specific exercises to standard care in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis on posture assessed using surface topography: A secondary analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)

2024· article· en· W4396528705 on OpenAlexafffund
Nada Mohamed, Vivechana Acharya, Sanja Schreiber, Éric Parent, Lindsey Westover

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSick Kids FoundationGlenrose Rehabilitation Hospital FoundationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInstitute of Human Development, Child and Youth HealthHospital for Sick ChildrenScoliosis Research Society
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialScoliosisPhysical therapyCobb angleIdiopathic scoliosisTrunkSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a three-dimensional structural asymmetry of the spine and trunk affecting 2-4% of adolescents. Standard treatment is observation, bracing, and surgery for small, moderate, and large curves, respectively. Schroth exercises aim to correct posture and reduce curve progression. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the effect of Schroth exercises added to the standard care compared to standard care alone on torso asymmetry in AIS. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial (NCT01610908), 124 participants with AIS (age: 10-18, Cobb: 10°-45°, Risser: ≤3) were randomly assigned to the control (Standard care only) or Schroth (Standard care + Schroth treatment) group. Schroth treatment consisted of 1-hour weekly supervised sessions and 30-45 minutes of daily home exercises for six months. The control group received Schroth exercises in the last six months of the 1-year monitoring period. Markerless 3D surface topography assessed torso asymmetry measured by maximum deviation (MaxDev) and root mean square (RMS). Intention to treat linear mixed effects model analysis was compared to the per protocol analysis. RESULTS: In the intention to treat analysis, the Schroth group (n = 63) had significantly larger decreased RMS (-1.2 mm, 95%CI [-1.5,-0.9]mm, p = 0.012) and MaxDev (-1.9mm, 95%CI [-2.4,-1.5]mm, p = 0.025) measurements compared to controls (n = 57) after six months of intervention. In the per protocol analysis (Schroth n = 39, control n = 36), the Schroth group also had a significantly larger decrease compared to the control in both the RMS (-1.0mm, 95%CI [-1.9, -0.2]mm, p = 0.013) and MaxDev measurements (-2.0mm, 95%CI [-3.3,-0.5]mm, p = 0.037). For the control group, both the intention to treat and per protocol analysis showed no difference in RMS and MaxDev in the last six months of Schroth intervention (p>0.5). CONCLUSION: Schroth Exercise treatment added to standard care (observation or bracing) reduced asymmetry measurements in AIS. As expected, a greater effect was observed for participants who followed the prescribed exercise treatment per protocol.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→