ArticleBone & joint open2026
3D topographic acquisitions to predict spinal curvature in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis : a prospective validation study.
Article in Bone & joint open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: This study aims to determine the reliability, accuracy, and usability of a new health application that uses AI to estimate major coronal curve magnitude in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) from 3D surface topography (ST) captured on a smartphone video scan. Methods: This is a prospective validation study. AIS patients, aged ten to 18 years, with coronal curve magnitudes ≤ 45° were recruited at a tertiary care spine clinic. A single trained researcher performed scans twice, six months apart, during participants' routine clinical and radiological assessment. Participants were asked to complete a scan once a month between clinic visits, starting the day of recruitment. Agreement was calculated by comparing scan curve magnitude predictions to the reference standard: a three-foot standing spine radiograph measured by blinded spine clinicians. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by comparing in-clinic to home scan predictions. Measures of diagnostic accuracy to determine the app's ability to screen for coronal deformity > 25° and its ability to detect progression > 5° over a six-month period were determined. Successful compared with failed scans were recorded. Results: Among participants (n = 63), 59 patients (94%) had at least one successful in-clinic scan and 32 patients (51%) had at least one successful home scan. Agreement with the reference standard was moderate for in-clinic scans (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.535) and poor for home scans (ICC 0.402). Inter-rater reliability between in-clinic and home scans was poor (ICC 0.168). The app had an accuracy of 70% when discriminating between curve magnitudes ± 25° and detecting curve progression > 5°. A larger proportion of scans failed at-home (30%) compared with in-clinic (16%). Conclusion: Conceptually, the app shows potential as an accessible screening tool for scoliosis. However, the accuracy and reliability suggest it is not yet a reasonable replacement for radiographs and in-person clinical evaluation.
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.