Appropriateness of Lumbar Spine Referrals to a Neurosurgical Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with lumbar spine complaints are often referred for surgical assessment. Only those with clinical and radiological evidence of nerve root compression are potential candidates for surgery and appropriate for surgical assessment. This study examines the appropriateness of lumbar spine referrals made to neurosurgeons in Edmonton, Alberta. METHODS: Lumbar spine referrals to a group of ten neurosurgeons at the University of Alberta were reviewed over three two month intervals. Clinical criteria for "appropriateness" for surgical assessment were as follows: •"Appropriate" referrals were those that stated leg pain was the chief complaint, or those that described physical exam evidence of neurological deficit, and imaging reports (CT or MRI) were positive for nerve root compression. •"Uncertain" referrals were those that reported both back and leg pain without specifying which was greater, without mention of neurologic deficit, and when at least possible nerve root compression was reported on imaging. •"Inappropriate" referrals contained no mention of leg symptoms or signs of neurological deficit, and/or had no description of nerve root compression on imaging. RESULTS: Of the 303 referrals collected, 80 (26%) were appropriate, 92 (30%) were uncertain and 131 (44%) were inappropriate for surgical assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians seeking specialist consultations for patients with lumbar spine complaints need to be better informed of the criteria which indicate an appropriate referral for surgical treatment, namely clinical and radiological evidence of nerve root compression. Avoiding inappropriate referrals could reduce wait-times for both surgical consultation and lumbar spine surgery for those patients requiring it.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".