Estimation and Assessment of Sagittal Spinal Curvature and Thoracic Muscle Morphometry in Different Postures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spine models are typically developed from supine clinical imaging data, and hence clearly do not fully reflect postures that replicate subjects’ clinical symptoms. Our objectives were to develop a method to: (i) estimate the subject-specific sagittal curvature of the whole spine in different postures from limited imaging data, (ii) obtain muscle lines-of-action in different postures and analyze the effect of posture on muscle fascicle length, and (iii) correct for cosine between the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan plane and dominant fiber line-of-action for muscle parameters (cross-sectional area (CSA) and position). The thoracic spines of six healthy volunteers were scanned in four postures (supine, standing, flexion, and sitting) in an upright MRI. Geometry of the sagittal spine was approximated with a circular spline. A pipeline was developed to estimate spine geometry in different postures and was validated. The lines-of-action for two muscles, erector spinae (ES) and transversospinalis (TS) were obtained for every posture and hence muscle fascicle lengths were computed. A correction factor based on published literature was then computed and applied to the muscle parameters. The maximum registration error between the estimated spine geometry and MRI data was small (average RMSE∼1.2%). The muscle fascicle length increased (up to 20%) in flexion when compared to erect postures. The correction factor reduced muscle parameters (∼5% for ES and ∼25% for TS) when compared to raw MRI data. The proposed pipeline is a preliminary step in subject-specific modeling. Direction cosines of muscles could be used while improving the inputs of spine models.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".