Radiographic reporting in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: Is there a discrepancy comparing radiologists’ reports and surgeons’ assessments?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Cobb angle is a standard method for quantification of scoliosis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis to guide treatment decisions. Precise and timely curve detection can ensure early referrals, amenable for bracing. Radiology reports serve as a guiding tool for family physicians to expedite specialist referrals. Therefore, accurate and reliable measurement of Cobb angle at the community level is crucial. This retrospective study investigated the agreement in Cobb angle measurement between radiologists and spine surgeons. Methods: Eighty radiographic reports (Cobb angle, Risser stage, and end vertebrae selection) completed by radiologists and spine surgeons were compared. To assess interrater reliability, interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed. ICC < 0.70, 0.70 to 0.79, 0.80 to 89, and 0.9 to 0.99 were considered poor, fair, good, and excellent reliability, respectively. All radiographs were assessed for quality. Results: The agreement between spine surgeons and radiologists was poor (ICC = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.97). The agreement between spine surgeons and community radiologists was poor (ICC = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.66). Risser stage was not reported in 56 of the 80 reports. ICC between spine surgeons and radiologists for the Risser stage was poor (ICC = 0.625, 95% CI: 0.325 to 0.794). For end vertebrae identification, there was absolute agreement of end vertebrae identification in 23 of the 80 scans. Conclusions: This study demonstrated a significant disagreement in scoliosis measurement between radiologists and spine surgeons, which significantly impacts appropriateness of referrals. Methods to improve triaging using allied health professional (i.e., nurse practitioners) may help ensure that patients presenting with scoliosis are referred in a timely manner.
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 | 0.062 | 0.232 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".