Growth modulation response in vertebral body tethering depends primarily on magnitude of concave vertebral body growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is variability in clinical outcomes with vertebral body tethering (VBT) partly due to a limited understanding of the growth modulation (GM) response. We used the largest sample of patients with 3D spine reconstructions to characterize the vertebra and disc morphologic changes that accompany growth modulation during the first two years following VBT. METHODS: A multicenter registry was used to identify idiopathic scoliosis patients who underwent VBT with 2 years of follow-up. Calibrated biplanar X-rays obtained at longitudinal timepoints underwent 3D reconstruction to obtain precision morphological measurements. GM was defined as change in instrumented coronal angulation from post-op to 2-years. RESULTS: Fifty patients (mean age: 12.5 ± 1.3yrs) were analyzed over a mean of 27.7 months. GM was positively correlated with concave vertebra height growth (r = 0.57, p < 0.001), 3D spine length growth (r = 0.36, p = 0.008), and decreased convex disc height (r = - 0.42, p = 0.002). High modulators (patients experiencing GM > 10°) experienced an additional 1.6 mm (229% increase) of mean concave vertebra growth during study period compared to the Poor Modulators (GM < - 10°) group, (2.3 vs. 0.7 mm, p = 0.039), while convex vertebra height growth was similar (1.3 vs. 1.4 mm, p = 0.91). CONCLUSION: When successful, VBT enables asymmetric vertebra body growth, leading to continued postoperative coronal angulation correction (GM). A strong GM response is correlated with concave vertebral body height growth and overall instrumented spine growth. A poor GM response is associated with an increase in convex disc height (suspected tether rupture). Future studies will investigate the patient and technique-specific factors that influence increased growth remodeling.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".