The International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design and Objectives. A retrospective review was conducted to assess trends in research selected for podium presentation at ISSLS. Summary of Background Data. Abstracts of past papers presented to ISSLS provide quantified documentation of trends in research as well as insight into future directions. Methods. A systematic review of abstracts of research presented was performed. Graphical plots in each category of research and aspects of study quality were used to identify any trends. Univariate and multivariate logistical regression analyses were used to identify factors related to eventual publication. Results. A total of 43% of selected papers focused on the disc, representing the single largest area of research. There is a linear trend over time toward increased selection of basic science papers and decreased clinical papers. Experimental research design is becoming more frequently selected. In 1978, over 80% of papers were purely descriptive. By 2002, 42% of papers were descriptive, whereas 40% incorporated an experimental design. However, over the past decade, there has been a linear increase in the proportion of randomized controlled trials among clinical papers compared with basic science or biomechanical papers. A total of 54% of all abstracts presented recently went on to publication. Independent factors that were associated with significantly (P < 0.05) higher publication rates included use of blinded or independent observers (84.6%), experimental design (68.4%), basic science or biomechanical papers (62.3%), and statistically positive result (61.8%). Conclusion. Overall, the type of research selected for presentation at ISSLS has improved over the years in regards to greater use of experimental and randomized study design. The eventual publication rates compare favorably to other research societies. Factors related to publication have been identified and should be considered in future research. At the 30th year of ISSLS, a review of the research trends provides documentation of its history as well as future insight. Overall, the research selected for presentation at ISSLS has improved over the years in regards to greater use of experimental and randomized study design. The eventual publication rates compare favorably with those of other research societies. Factors related to publication are identified.
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 | 0.019 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.024 |
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".