A prospective randomized controlled trial of the natural history of idiopathic scoliosis versus treatment with the SpineCor brace. Sosort Award 2011 winner.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the efficacy of the Dynamic SpineCor brace for early idiopathic scoliosis (15°-30°) compared to the natural evolution of the disease. 68 patients participated in this study (32 treated and 36 controls) with at least 5 years follow-up. METHODS: The inclusion criteria were: 1) high risk of evolution: family history and/or proven progressive; 2) no significant pathological malformation of the spine; 3) initial Cobb angle between 15° and 30°; 4) risser 0, 1 or 2. Assessment of brace efficacy included the percentage of patients who have 5º or less curve progression and the percentage of patients who have 6º or more progression at skeletal maturity. RESULTS: At five-year follow-up a correction was achieved in 50% of treated patient and only in 9.5% of controls, stabilization in 42.3% treated and 47.7% in controls and progression in 26.9% for the treated group and 42.8% for controls. For the control patients we considered as a failure if the Cobb angle worsened by more then 5° from the original angle and the patient then received treatment. CONCLUSION: The results 5 years after the treatment suggested that the SpineCor brace reduced the probability of the progression of early idiopathic scoliosis comparing with its natural history. Moreover, the positive outcome appears to be maintained in the long term.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".