MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966059083 · doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000000082

Efficacy of Biphasic Transcranial Electric Stimulation in Intraoperative Motor Evoked Potential Monitoring for Cervical Compression Myelopathy

2013· article· en· W1966059083 on OpenAlexaff
Dai Ukegawa, Shigenori Kawabata, Kyohei Sakaki, Senichi Ishii, Shoji Tomizawa, Hiroyuki Inose, Toshitaka Yoshii, Tsuyoshi Kato, Mitsuhiro Enomoto, Atsushi Okawa

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic Effects
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStimulationBicepsMyelopathyAnesthesiaDeltoid curveSpinal cordSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients undergoing 2 methods of transcranial electrical motor evoked potential (TCE-MEP) monitoring during cervical spine surgery. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of biphasic transcranial electric stimulation, the deviation rate, amplitude of TCE-MEPs, complications, and sensitivity and specificity of TCE-MEP monitoring were compared between the biphasic and conventional monophasic stimulation methods. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: With biphasic stimulation, unlike monophasic stimulation, measurement time can be reduced considerably because a single stimulation elicits bilateral responses almost simultaneously. However, no study has yet reported a detailed comparison of the 2 methods. METHODS: Examination 1: Amplitude and derivation rate of TCE-MEPs was compared for monophasic and biphasic stimulation in the same 31 patients with cervical compression myelopathy. Examination 2: Sensitivity, specificity, and complications of TCE-MEP monitoring were compared in 200 patients with cervical compression myelopathy who received monophasic or biphasic stimulation (100 patients each) during intraoperative monitoring. RESULTS: Examination 1: Derivation rates of biphasic stimulation in the deltoid, biceps brachii, abductor digiti minimi, and flexor hallucis brevis muscles were the same or higher than for monophasic stimulation. TCE-MEP amplitudes elicited by biphasic stimulation compared with monophasic stimulation were significantly larger in the biceps (paired t, P < 0.0001), but similar in the other 3 muscles. Examination 2: In the biphasic and monophasic stimulation groups, warnings were issued to surgeons in 10 and 11 cases, for a sensitivity of 100% for both groups and specificity of 97.8% and 96.7%, respectively. No complications related to stimulation were observed in any of the 200 patients. CONCLUSION: Biphasic stimulation had similar or higher derivation rates and equivalent sensitivity and specificity than monophasic stimulation. No complications were observed for either stimulation method. Biphasic stimulation is an effective TCE-MEP monitoring method for cervical spine surgery that may also reduce measurement time. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicIntraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic EffectsFrench-language works237,207