Ultrasonographic Evaluation of the Risser Sign
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study of ultrasonographic evaluation (UE) results of the Risser sign (RS) in adolescents. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the efficiency of UE of RS, compare it with radiographic evaluation, and investigate the intraexaminer and interexaminer reliability of UE. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The use of ultrasound in orthopedic practice has a growing popularity. As a noninvasive radiological method, the evaluation of RS seems to be a promising alternative in patients suffering from scoliosis who require a long-term follow-up. METHODS: This study consists of 142 patients (70 female and 72 male cases) aged between 10 and 17 years, with a mean age of 13.8 ± 1.7 years. Menarche experience, body mass index, and skinfold thickness of the patients were recorded. Forty-five patients were found to have scoliosis. All ultrasonographic and radiographic evaluations were made by 2 blinded orthopedists. X-ray was considered as the gold standard. RESULTS: Percentage accuracy of UE was found to be 77.7% (κ = 0.698) for the first examiner and 64.30% (κ = 0.542) for the second examiner. Intraexaminer and interexaminer agreement were 0.971 and 0.924 for the UE, respectively. Moreover, interexaminer agreement for radiographic evaluation was 0.689. No significant difference was observed between the values of scoliosis and nonscoliosis patients. When the patients with a skinfold thickness of 16 mm or less and more than 16 mm were examined, the percentage accuracy of the UE was 80.43% (κ = 0.727) for the first group, whereas it was 72.91% (κ = 0.637) in the other group. CONCLUSION: We found the intraexaminer and interexaminer agreement for the UE of RS to be reliable. In radiographic evaluation of RS, the intraexaminer and interexaminer agreement were lower. These findings were also consistent with data from the literature. In conclusion, UE of RS is a reliable method; however, the results may vary when x-ray is considered as the gold standard.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".