MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402538340 · doi:10.1007/s00586-024-08487-0

Puberty changes the natural history of idiopathic scoliosis: three prediction models for future radiographic curve severity from 1563 consecutive patients

2024· article· en· W4402538340 on OpenAlexafffund
Stefano Négrini, Maryna Yaskina, Sabrina Donzelli, Alberto Negrini, Giulia Rebagliati, Claudio Cordani, Fabio Zaina, Éric Parent

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Spine Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersMinistero della SaluteUniversità degli Studi di MilanoChildren's Hospital FoundationStollery Children’s Hospital FoundationWomen and Children's Health Research InstituteChildren's Health Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineNatural historyGrowth spurtRadiographyIdiopathic scoliosisCobb angleScoliosisOrthodonticsInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose Understanding idiopathic scoliosis (IS) natural history during growth is essential for shared decision-making between patients and physicians. We developed a retrospective model with the largest available sample in the literature and we aimed to investigate if using three peri-pubertal growth periods provides better prediction than a unique model. Methods Secondary analysis of a previous study on IS natural history data from radiographs before and at the first consult. Three groups: BEFORE (age 6–10), AT (age 11-Risser 2) and AFTER (from Risser 3) the pubertal growth spurt. Available predictors: Cobb angle, curve type, sex, observation time, and Risser score. We used linear mixed-effects models to predict future Cobb angles in each group. We internally validated prediction accuracy with over 100 patients per group (3 to 5-fold cross-validation). Results We included 1563 participants (275 BEFORE, 316 AFTER, 782 females and 190 males AT). Curves increased over time mostly in AT, importantly in BEFORE, but also in AFTER. All models performed better than the general one. In BEFORE, 74.2% of the predictions were within ± 5 o , 71.8% in AFTER, 68.2% in AT females, and 60.4% in males. The predictors (baseline curve, observation time also squared and cubic, and Risser score) were similar in all the models, with sex influencing only AFTER. Conclusion IS curve severities increase differently during growth with puberty stages. Model accuracy increases when tailored by growth spurt periods. Our models may help patients and clinicians share decisions, identify the risk of progression and inform treatment planning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Spine JournalSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207