Inter-Evaluator Reliability of Sagittal and Rotational Spinal Measurements from 3D Ultrasound Imaging of Healthy Females in Standing with Varying Arm Positions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spinal alignment can be assessed without radiation using three-dimensional ultrasound imaging (3DUS). Reliable measurements could inform the ideal arm position for scoliosis radiographs. This study determined the inter-evaluator reliability of axial vertebral rotation (AVR) measurements and sagittal curve angles in healthy females from 3DUS spinal images in standing with two common radiograph arm positions: Chin and abduction (Abd). Three novice evaluators (R1, R2, and R3) measured images once. The Bland–Altman bias and limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated. T5-T12 kyphosis measurements met our bias and LOA error threshold only for R1 vs R2 in the Chin position [−0.53° (−10.7,9.7)]. The distance between the bias and the LOA also met our acceptable threshold of 5° for all mean AVRTwist, and all but one AVRTwist measurements (R1-R2_Chin = 5.9°). Three lordosis measurements did not meet our acceptable threshold (R1-R2_Chin, R1-R3_Chin, and R2-R3_Abd). The inter-evaluator reliability of novice evaluators was adequate and did not differ significantly between positions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".