Bracing of children with pectus carinatum: A literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conservative treatment of children with carinatum is currently an urgent and unresolved problem despite the wide range of techniques available. Conservative treatment stops the progression of deformation and reduces the degree of deformation or eliminates it. Methods of evaluating treatment results include clinical (photo–video assessment, questionnaire survey, and chest measurements) and instrumental diagnostics (radiography, computed tomography [CT], and 3D scanning); however, no method of correction and orthosis that would consider all the tasks of conservative treatment, method of evaluating conservative treatment, and uniform protocol have been established. AIM: This study aimed to analyze the literature containing information on the conservative treatment of patients with pectus carinatum. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study presents the results of a search in PubMed, Cochrane, and eLibrary using combinations of operators and keywords. A total of 54 foreign and domestic sources were extracted, and the search was not limited retrospectively. RESULTS: Orthosis is effective and positively perceived by doctors and patients. The most modern designs in the treatment of carinatum included dynamic orthoses FMF-DCS and Braceworks (Calgary). Recent studies have reported a strong correlation between 3D scanning and CT to assess treatment outcomes. However, no single option for conservative correction of deformity allowed for achieving all treatment goals. The assessment of the effectiveness of orthosis using photos, videos, and questionnaire, and chest measurement is subjective. CONCLUSIONS: The disadvantages of prosthetics determine the need to develop a clear treatment algorithm, methodology, and objective assessment of treatment outcomes, requiring further research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".