Rotatory subluxation: experience from the Hospital for Sick Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Diagnosis and management of atlantoaxial rotatory subluxation (AARS) is challenging because of its variability in clinical presentation. Although several treatment modalities have been employed, there remains no consensus on the most appropriate therapy. The authors explore this issue in their 9-year series on AARS. METHODS: Records of patients diagnosed radiologically and clinically with AARS between May 2001 and March 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. Of 40 patients identified, 24 were male and were on average 8.5 years of age (range 15 months-16 years). Causes of AARS included trauma, congenital abnormalities, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, infection, postsurgical event, and cryptogenic disease. Four patients had dual etiologies. Symptom duration varied: 29 patients had symptoms for less than 4 weeks, 5 patients had symptoms between 1 and 3 months, and 6 patients had symptoms for 3 months or more. RESULTS: Treatment with a cervical collar was sufficient in 21 patients. In 1 patient collar management failed and halter traction was used to reduce the subluxation. Seven patients underwent initial halter traction, but in 4 the subluxation progressed and the patients required halo traction. A halo vest was placed in 2 patients on presentation because the rotatory subluxation was severe; both patients required subsequent operative fusion. One patient required decompression and fusion due to severe canal compromise and myelopathy. All patients requiring fusion presented with subacute symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Management of AARS varies due to the spectrum of clinical presentations. Patients presenting acutely without neurological deficits can likely undergo collar therapy; those in whom the subluxation cannot be reduced or who present with a neurological deficit may require traction and/or surgical fixation. Patients presenting subacutely may be more prone to requiring operative intervention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".