When only partial spinal cord detethering is possible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In most instances, initial surgery to untether a tethered spinal cord is successful. But what happens when it is not? The authors describe the case of a now 18-year-old woman with spina bifida in whom surgery for tethered cord was required on two occasions. In both instances, due to the extent of her underlying lesion and fibrous tissue, only partial detethering was possible without acutely sacrificing significant neurological function. The authors detail the patient's course and review the peer-reviewed scientific literature on outcomes in patients in whom only partial cord detethering is achieved. In their review of all case series and clinical studies pertaining to the surgical treatment of tethered cord syndrome identified during an online search of 2184 scientific abstracts and 2 major neurosurgery textbooks, excluding the present case, the authors identified 53 confirmed or presumed cases of incomplete detethering in eight articles, incorporating 390 patients, for an overall prevalence of roughly 13.6%. Although no investigators have reported statistical comparisons of outcomes in those in whom just partial and complete detethering has been achieved, the evidence generally suggests poorer outcomes in the former. Prospective multicenter studies addressing this important issue clearly are warranted. To date, the authors believe that incomplete detethering is grossly underreported in the medical literature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".