Subaxial Injury Classification Scoring System Treatment Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. OBJECTIVE: To test validity of subaxial injury classification (SLIC) treatment recommendations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although SLIC has been tested for reliability, external studies that test the validity of its treatment recommendations are lacking. METHODS: The SLIC score was determined by reviewing imaging studies and clinical records in a consecutive series of 185 patients with subaxial cervical spine trauma presenting to a level 1 spinal injury referral center. Details including attending surgeon responsible for treatment decision, treatment received, and surgical approach were collected. RESULTS: Treatment received matched SLIC guidelines in 93.6% nonsurgically managed patients and 96.3% surgically managed patients. The mean SLIC score of the surgically treated group of patients was significantly higher than that of the nonsurgical group (7.14 vs. 2.22; P<0.001). Sixty-six patients had a SLIC score of 3 or less, and 94% of them were nonsurgically managed (P<0.001). One hundred two patients had a SLIC score of 5 or more, and 95% of them were surgically managed (P<0.001). Seventeen patients had a SLIC score of 4, and 65% were nonsurgically managed (P=0.032). Injury morphology scores were not predictive of surgical approach. Increasing SLIC scores correlated with increasing complexity of treatment (r=0.77; P<0.001). The distribution of patients with regard to severity of injuries and treatment delivered by the 7 spinal surgeons was comparable. The past practice of these 7 fellowship-trained spine surgeons was individually in agreement with SLIC treatment recommendations. CONCLUSION: Our past practice reflects SLIC treatment recommendations for nonsurgical treatment of patients with SLIC scores of 3 or less and surgical treatment of patients with SLIC scores of 5 or more. The use of SLIC as an ordinal severity scale is validated as increasing SLIC scores correlated with increasing complexity of treatment. The injury morphology score did not predict a surgical approach. Significantly higher numbers of patients with a SLIC score of 4 were treated nonsurgically. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".