Sensitivity and Specificity of Elliptical Modeling and Sagittal Lumbar Alignment Variables in Normal vs. Acute Low Back Pain Patients: Does Pelvic Morphology Explain Group Lordotic Differences?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: The lumbar lordosis (LL) is influenced by pelvic morphology, the unique dimensional characteristics of the pelvis. We investigated the sensitivity and specificity of lumbar sagittal radiographic alignment variables to discriminate between normal controls and acute low back pain (ALBP) patients. Methods: A total of 50 normal controls (29 men; mean age of 27.7 ± 8.5 years) with no history of low back pain and 50 ALBP patients (29 men; 28.1 ± 8 years of age) were compared. Radiographic variables included three measures of LL, a b/a elliptical modeling ratio, sacral base angle (SBA), S1 posterior tangent to vertical (PTS1), two measures of pelvic morphology, as well as three relationships between morphology and LL. Descriptive statistics, linear correlations, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated. Results: The SBA and Cobb T12-S1 LL were significantly greater in the ALBP group. The SBA showed a reasonable ability to discriminate between the normal and ALBP groups with ROC curve analysis (AUC = 0.67, optimal cut-off value = 41.2°, sensitivity = 0.70, and specificity = 0.62). Pelvic morphology was similar between sex and pain groups. Conclusions: Our sample of ALBP patients had similar pelvic morphology as compared to normal control participants; however, they also demonstrated an increased T12-S1 lordosis and sacral base angle, shown as a hyperlordosis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".