Promotion of sports, exercise and physical activity participation during postoperative interventions for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: protocol for an international e-Delphi study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is present in 2%-3% of those under 18 years old and has a significant impact on pain, function and quality of life. Up to 10% of adolescents with AIS progress to spinal fusion surgery, and of those individuals many experience reduced musculoskeletal function and do not return to sports postoperatively. Physiotherapists have a significant role in promoting participation and offering a graded return to sports, exercise and physical activity. However, there is a lack of evidence and variability between surgeons and physiotherapists worldwide regarding rehabilitation milestones and return to exercise, sports and physical activity. This study aims to reach a consensus on when it is safe and how an individual might begin a graded return to sports, exercise and physical activity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol was written in accordance with the Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) guidelines. An international expert sample of surgeons and physiotherapists in AIS will be recruited. This electronic Delphi is anticipated to consist of three iterative rounds. Round 1 will be a series of open-ended questions examining rehabilitation milestones and return to sports, exercise and physical activity postoperatively. Round 2 will commence with a summary of the existing literature for participants to review. Rounds 2 and 3 will involve a collated summary of results from the previous round, including any dissonance. During rounds 2 and 3, participants will be asked to privately rate responses on a 5-point Likert scale. The study steering group and patient and public involvement representative have been involved from conceptualisation and will continue to be involved until final dissemination. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Full ethical approval has been provided by the University of Birmingham, reference number: ERN_1617-Nov2023. Dissemination will take place through conference presentation and peer-reviewed publications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.093 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.012 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".