MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1212181691 · doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000001155

Accessibility of the Cervicothoracic Junction Through an Anterior Approach

2015· article· en· W1212181691 on OpenAlexaff
Sean M. Mitchell, Tyler J. Jenkins, Jason W. Savage, Alpesh A. Patel, Wellington K. Hsu

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsRoyal Bank of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingRadiographySagittal planeCervical vertebraeRadiologyBody mass indexSurgical planningOrthodonticsKappaThoracic vertebraePlain radiographyReliability (semiconductor)Nuclear medicineSurgeryLumbar vertebraeLumbarPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. OBJECTIVE: To formulate a reliable method and modality for preoperative planning and to determine the effects of height, body mass index (BMI), and age on accessibility to the upper thoracic vertebrae through an anterior cervical approach. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Various modalities have been proposed to determine the lowest spinal-level accessible through a traditional anterolateral cervical approach and the consequent need for manubriotomy. Past methods have routinely involved a variety of imaging studies such as plain radiographs and computed tomography but the reliability of these methods has not been assessed. METHODS: The Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) images of 180 patients classified by age and gender were evaluated and the most caudal accessible intervertebral disc space was determined from an approach angle beginning at the suprasternal notch. Plain cervical radiographs were also reviewed when available. In patients with multiple imaging studies, the reliability of the measurements was compared. Rate of accessibility was compared across different heights, BMIs, and ages. RESULTS: A novel algorithm that utilized both the scout and mid-sagittal T2 MRIs was able to determine the most caudal cervicothoracic level accessible for anterior access in 93.3% of patients with a reliability of 96.8%. Conversely, plain radiograph evaluation led to low reliability (66.7%) and low agreement with MRI (60%) with an average error of one spinal level. In this patient sample, the T1 to T2 disc space was accessible in 82.7% of patients. Age and BMI were independent variables associated with accessibility (p < 0.01) while height was determined not to be significant (p = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Data in this study suggest an MRI-based algorithm with a combination of scout and sagittal T2 images offers a reliable and consistent assessment of accessibility to upper thoracic levels through an anterior approach. Age and body mass index are major determinants of accessibility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207