French-Canadian validation of the Spinal Appearance Questionnaire (SAQ) in the adolescent patients at a scoliosis clinic and its clinical application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The SAQ was developed to measure patients' and parents' perceptions of their spinal deformity appearance. The objective of this study was to provide the French-Canadian spine community with a validated version of the SAQ. The SAQ was distributed to 254 French-speaking consecutive patients at the scoliosis clinics of CHU Sainte-Justine, in addition to the SRS Outcome Questionnaire (SRS-22). 182 fully completed questionnaires were obtained: 161 girls, 21 boys, mean age 15.0 (2.5) Cobb angle between 0 and 88 degrees. Intra-domain correlations were moderate to high (0.34 to 0.80, p<0.01) indicating that the items of the scales demonstrated a satisfactory internal coherence. Comparison of scores between SAQ-fv items and SRS-22 domains showed only high correlations (0.36 to 0.56, p<0.01) for the self-image domain, as expected in this test of convergent validity. A clear gradient in SAQ-fv scores according to Cobb angles was found in every scales. BMI, age, Risser and gender did not influence the questionnaire scores. Pre-operative patients' and parents' scores were significantly more affected when compared to other groups (observation, braced and post-op). In the SAQ-fv second part (Q9-Q16), a U-shaped distribution and a higher disagreement between parents and patients were observed, questioning the response scale construction. The SAQ-fv shows satisfactory validity and reliability in spinal deformity appearance evaluation. Since it is independent of patient's general characteristics it can discriminate between relevant clinical values and provide useful information for the clinical management of AIS patients.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".