MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1537698685 · doi:10.3171/ped-07/08/178

Incorporation of C-1 lateral mass screws in occipitocervical and atlantoaxial fusions for children 8 years of age or younger

2007· letter· en· W1537698685 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Jea, Michael D. Taylor, Peter B. Dirks, Abhaya V. Kulkarni, James T. Rutka, James M. Drake

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLateral massPars interarticularisVertebral arteryDemographicsSurgeryAtlas (anatomy)Fixation (population genetics)Cervical spineAtlantoaxial instabilityLumbarAnatomySpondylolysisPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors describe the novel use of C-1 lateral mass screws in four children 8 years of age or younger, in whom occipitocervical or atlantoaxial fusion was performed for trauma or os odontoideum. The authors retrospectively reviewed the demographics and procedural data of four children, ranging in age from 2 to 8 years, who required and underwent surgical fixation. Although C1-2 screw/rod constructs involving individual C-1 lateral mass screws and C-2 pars interarticularis or pedicle screws have been widely applied in adults, only C1-2 transarticular screw fixation has been reported in children less than 8 years of age. This report demonstrates the successful results of rigid occipitocervical and atlantoaxial fusion in four children in whom C-1 lateral mass screws were placed as part of a screw/rod construct. There was one instance of a vertebral artery injury, and the lessons learned from this complication are discussed.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations53
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery PediatricsSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207