The effect of arm positions used during radiography on spinal alignment parameters assessed by 3D ultrasound imaging in adolescents with and volunteers without idiopathic scoliosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Clinicians monitor scoliosis progression using multiple radiographs during growth. During imaging, arms must be elevated to visualize vertebrae, possibly affecting sagittal alignment. This study aimed to determine the arm position that best represents habitual standing (and possibly allowing hand-based skeletal maturity assessment) to obtain frontal and lateral stereo-radiographs as measured using frontal, sagittal, and transverse angles. METHODS: Females with and without, and males with Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) were recruited consecutively. Patients were scanned using 3D Ultrasound imaging (3DUS), in 10 arm positions; habitual standing, arms supported anteriorly at 60° flexion, fingers to clavicle, chin, zygomatic, and eyebrows, arms abducted 90°, hands on wall, on blocks, and unsupported. Axial vertebral rotation (AVR) differences, frontal, and sagittal curve angles were measured. Repeated measures ANOVAs with Sidak post-hoc tests compared positions. RESULTS: Ninety females with and without AIS with mean age, and height of 17 ± 4 years, and 162 ± 6 cm, and ten males with AIS of 16 ± 3 years, and 174 ± 11 cm, respectively, were included. Female AIS single-curve showed larger curves in standing in all positions excluding hands on blocks (p > 0.05). Sagittal parameters showed decreases in kyphosis in arms abducted 90° and increases in lordosis in fingers to cheeks/eyebrows (p > 0.05). AVR twist was not significantly affected by position. Male AIS showed comparable results to females, but no significant differences were detected. CONCLUSION: No position represented habitual standing for all groups. When arms are raised, decreases in curve angle were shown in single-curve patients, kyphosis decreased, and lordosis increased in all groups. Most accurate positioning for all parameters was in fingers to clavicle/chin position.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".