INITIAL OUTCOMES OF POSTERIOR DYNAMIC DISTRACTION DEVICE COMPARED TO VERTEBRAL BODY TETHERING FOR ADOLESCENT IDIOPATHIC SCOLIOSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-fusion procedures are growing in use for the AIS treatment. Two devices received limited HDE approval for clinical use by the US FDA in 2019. Although treatment indications are similar, to our knowledge, there is no multicenter comparative study of the perioperative outcomes for these two devices. AIS patients who met FDA HDE criteria for PDDD were prospectively enrolled in this matched multicenter comparative study. Inclusion criteria were the diagnosis of Lenke 1/5 AIS, Cobb angle 35-60 degrees with correction to less than or equal to 30 degrees on lateral bend and minimal thoracic kyphosis. These patients were matched by age, gender, Risser score, curve type, and curve magnitude to a single-center cohort of prospectively enrolled VBT patients, and perioperative results were compared up to 1-year follow-up. Twenty-three PDDD patients were matched to 23 VBT patients. There was no difference in preoperative major Cobb angle (46 vs. 47 degrees, p=0.5), age (13.2 vs. 13.0, p=0.6), curve type (90% thoracic for both groups, p=1.0), Risser or gender. Mean blood loss was significantly higher in the VBT cohort (90 ml vs. 35 ml for PDDD, p=0.0064). Mean operative time was longer in the VBT cohort, 173 min vs. 113 min for PDDD (p Prospective perioperative outcomes demonstrate better index correction and reduced operative time, blood loss, and length of stay in PDDD compared to a matched cohort of VBT patients within one-year post-operation. Further data on long-term functional benefits and durability are needed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".