MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2047799345 · doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000202558.86309.ea

Determinants of the Progression in Lumbar Degeneration

2006· article· en· W2047799345 sur OpenAlexaff
Tapio Videman, Michele C. Battié, Samuli Ripatti, Kevin Gill, Hannu Manninen, Jaakko Kaprio

Notice bibliographique

RevueSpine · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
Mots-clésMedicineDegeneration (medical)TearsLumbarSagittal planeDegenerative disc diseaseDegenerative diseaseIntervertebral discAnatomyPathologySurgeryDisease

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. A 5-year follow-up study of exposure of discordant monozygotic twin pairs with repeated interviews and spine imaging. Objective. The primary goals were to record changes in the degenerative signs over a 5-year interval and to estimate the effects of familial influences and suspected environmental risk factors on the speed of lumbar degeneration. Summary of Background Data. Traditionally, disc degeneration has been attributed to aging and environmental exposures; recently, a dominant effect of genetics has been revealed. Yet the etiopathogenesis of disc degeneration remains poorly understood and controversial despite being a primary target of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Methods. Among 116 monozygotic twin pairs, which had been examined 5 years earlier, 75 pairs (150 men) were reexamined. They were imaged using the same MRI scanner and examination protocol as at baseline. The data were analyzed using statistical methods for longitudinal studies. Results. Progression in disc height narrowing, disc bulging, osteophytosis, and fatty degeneration in the lumbar spine was seen in about 7% to 13% of the discs in 7% to 46% of subjects during 5-year follow-up. Few degenerative findings appear to reverse; few disc height measures increased, some anular tears were no longer visible, and bulging/herniation diminished. New anular tears (in axial view) were detected in 1.5%, disappeared in 2%, and were unchanged in 5.3% of discs; in the sagittal view, new high intensity zones findings were identified in 0.5%, were no longer apparent in 1.6%, and were unchanged in 7.1% of discs. There were no clear changes in upper endplates: in 2.1% of discs, the irregularity score increased and in 1.8% it decreased. Familial aggregation, reflecting genetic, and shared environmental influences, explained 47% to 66% of the variance in progression of degenerative signs on lumbar MRI, and resistance training and occupational physical loading together explained 2% to 10% of the progression in the degenerative signs in lumbar MRIs. Conclusions. Progression of disc height narrowing, bulging, osteophytes, and fatty degeneration was detected in about 10% or less of the T12–S1 discs. Development and disappearance of anular lesions were rarer. No clear changes were seen in endplate irregularities. The results also confirm that hereditary effects have a dominant role in the progression of disc degeneration and suggest that occupational lifting and leisure time resistance training have modest additional effects. A 5-year follow-up study of 150 exposure discordant male monozygotic twins was conducted to record changes in degenerative signs on lumbar MRI and to estimate the effects of familial influences and suspected environmental risk factors on the changes. Overall, the progression of different degenerative signs in the lumbar spine was slow, with progression detected in 10% or less of discs over 5 years. In the majority of subjects, no clear progression was observed. The results support a dominant role for heredity in the pathogenesis of disc degeneration, with occupational lifting and resistance training during follow-up having a small additional effect.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,291
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,097

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,314
Écart entre enseignants0,301 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations137
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSpineMême sujetSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyTravaux en français237 207