MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971008170 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e318134eaa3

Evidence-Based Medicine Analysis of All Pedicle Screw Constructs in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis

2007· review· en· W1971008170 on OpenAlexaff
Kishore Mulpuri, Angeliki Perdios, Christopher W. Reilly

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIdiopathic scoliosisScoliosisRachisOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. Focus paper. Objective. To evaluate the current evidence-based medicine (EBM) literature in the use of pedicle screw constructs in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Summary of Background. EBM has evolved over the past 20 years to provide a framework for the evaluation of therapy and the application of that assessment to a particular patient or a disease. Application of EBM analysis to spinal instrumentation, and specifically to pedicle screw constructs, is challenging. Methods. Cochrane database, Ovid Medline, and PubMed were searched using the terms “pedicle screws” and “adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.” The reference list of the major papers by authors Lenke, Suk, and Kim were hand searched. Relevant articles were retained if they described a pedicle screw construct to correct AIS or compared pedicle screw constructs with another technique. Articles that did not have patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in their subject groups or did not use pedicle screws as a part of their deformity correction were excluded from the study. Results. Based on the search strategy described above, 40 articles met the inclusion criteria and were selected for review in this manuscript. Of these, 32 studies are retrospective reviews including 2 studies that do not define their data collection technique. Six studies have a prospective study design, 1 is a case report, and 1 is a cadaveric study. Conclusion. In the absence of evidence from randomized trials, surgeons must rely on the best available information to guide patient management decisions. Although there have been many publications on the topic of all pedicle screw constructs in AIS, evidence regarding the advantage of all pedicle screw constructs remain limited to case series, biomechanical studies, and expert opinions. This review evaluates the current evidence-based medicine literature in the use of pedicle screw constructs in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. In the absence of evidence from randomized trials, surgeons must rely on the best available information for patient management. The evidence remains limited to case series, biomechanical studies, and expert opinions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.241
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207