Do the regions of the spinal column record stress differently? An analysis of diminished growth in the vertebral neural canal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study explores the validity of the focus on lumbar vertebral neural canal (VNC) diameters as a non-specific stress indicator by comparing evidence of diminished growth between vertebral regions. MATERIALS: Cervical, thoracic, and lumbar VNC diameters were measured from 29 children (3-18 years) from the Certosa collection, a documented late 19th century skeletal assemblage. METHODS: Z-scores were calculated for each individual vertebra using published anterior-posterior (APD) and transverse (TRD) vertebral diameters obtained from radiographic images of living children. Differences in mean APD and TRD z-scores between vertebral regions were assessed using Repeated Measures ANOVA. RESULTS: Cervical TRD growth reduction was significantly greater than in the lumbar (p ≤ 0.001) and thoracic regions (p ≤ 0.001), which did not differ significantly (p = 0.524). Mean lumbar APD values were lower than cervical values, but not significantly (F[1,20]=2.259, p = 0.148). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to current methodological practices, cervical vertebrae TRD showed more diminished growth than thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, while analysis of cervical APD indicates that these vertebrae may be as informative about non-specific stress as lumbar vertebrae. SIGNIFICANCE: An exclusionary focus on lumbar vertebrae could overlook growth insults recorded by the earlier developing cervical vertebrae. This article demonstrates the benefit of reevaluating past research and methodological practices in paleopathology. LIMITATIONS: The use of comparative data from living children may not be applicable to growth in non-surviving children. Magnification may impact the comparability of data from radiographs with manual measurements. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Future research using comparative data from magnification-free sources and including the thoracic APD is advised.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".