ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparative analysis of a manual and an automated 3D landmark digitization method of the torso in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) often presents with significant 3D asymmetry of the torso, posing challenges for both patients and clinicians. Surface topography, based on the identification of anatomical landmarks, offers a non-invasive alternative to x-rays for monitoring shape changes over time, thereby reducing radiation exposure. However, the current gold standard, a manual landmarking process, is labor intensive and prone to error. Here, we present an automated 3D landmark digitization method designed to address these limitations. We performed the validation comparing the automated 3D landmark digitization method against the manual gQ1old standard across three phases: preliminary error assessment, geometric morphometrics (GMM) shape/size evaluation, and practical allometry application. Our results show that the automated method effectively quantifies torso shape, achieving a nonsignificant measurement error in both groups (23.1 mm in patients with p-value = 0.33; and 20.3 mm in controls with p-value = 0.30). It has also captured variance patterns comparable to the manual approach, showing high agreement for PC1 (0.94; CI95%: 0.91-0.96) and good agreement for PC2 (0.85; CI95%: 0.78-0.90), and performs similarly in assessing allometry, without significant differences in capturing the allometric signal (p-value = 0.09). However, the automated method exhibited reduced ability to capture shape variability, highlighting potential areas for improvement. These results suggest that automated, non-radiographic techniques hold promise for clinical application in tracking AIS progression. Future refinements could further improve accuracy, paving the way for safer and more efficient scoliosis management strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.