MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1558922426 · doi:10.3171/2011.12.spine11677

Local autograft retrieval from a cervical vertebral body: biomechanical consequences

2012· article· en· W1558922426 on OpenAlexaff
Tobias Pitzen, Juay Seng Tan, Marcel F. Dvorak, Charles G. Fisher, Thomas R. Oxland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Spine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVertebral bodyCervical spinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: To avoid the cost of bone graft substitutes and the morbidity of iliac crest bone graft retrieval, locally harvested vertebral body bone has been used to fill interbody cages. When marginal hypertrophic osteophytes are used, there is little impact on the adjacent vertebrae, but when cancellous bone is removed from the central part of the vertebral body, it is not clear how significantly this procedure weakens the vertebra. The objective of this study was to investigate the immediate mechanical response of the cervical spine after removing bone from the central vertebral body. METHODS: Fourteen cervical functional spinal units (FSUs) (mean age 73.3 years, range 63-90 years) were used. For each FSU, bone mineral density (BMD) was determined using lateral-view dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry studies. The FSUs were assigned to 1 of 2 groups (test group or control group) with an equal distribution of BMD. All specimens received a cage placed into the cleaned disc space. The specimens from the test group had a 5-mm-diameter bone plug removed from the vertebral bodies superior and inferior to the cage-fitted disc. The specimens were loaded in flexion-compression until failure via an eccentric compressive force at 0.25 mm/second. RESULTS: The yield compression strength was 1149 ± 523 N for the test group and 1647 ± 962 N for the control group (p = 0.25). The ultimate compression strength was 1699 ± 498 N for the test group and 2450 N ± 835 N for the control group (p = 0.06). Force at 4 mm displacement was 1064 N for the test group and 1574 N for the control group (p = 0.15). Displacement at yield compression strength was 4.4 mm for the test group and 4.2 mm for the control group (p = 0.78). There was no significant intergroup difference for any of the studied parameters. CONCLUSIONS: There does not appear to be a significant early biomechanical weakening of adjacent vertebrae caused by aforementioned technique of local bone harvest.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.260 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery SpineSame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207