Concerns, Desires and Expectations of Surgery for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Comparison of Patients', Parents' & Surgeons' Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concerns, Desires and Expectations Of Surgery For Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Comparison Of Patients’, Parents’ & Surgeons’ Perspectives. Master of Science, 2008 Unni G. Narayanan Department of Health Policy, Management & Evaluation University of Toronto ABSTRACT This study explored the concerns, desires (goals) and expectations of adolescents undergoing surgery for idiopathic scoliosis, and contrasted their priorities with those of their parents and surgeons. Parents were more concerned than their children about the consequences of scoliosis and of surgery. With the exception of improving physical appearance, surgeons' goals of surgery were different from those of either the patients or parents. There was little agreement among surgeons about the natural history of scoliosis, other goals of surgery and the likelihood of specific outcomes. Parents wanted and expected more from surgery than their children. Parents and patients had greater expectations of surgery than surgeons. Although adolescents had different priorities from their parents, parents were aware of these differences and reliably predicted their children’s priorities. These findings have important implications on shared decision-making and informed consent, and might contribute to better understanding and measurement of outcomes that matter to patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".