MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973643590 · doi:10.3171/foc/2008/24/1/e9

Management of cervical deformity in ankylosing spondylitis

2008· review· en· W1973643590 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel J. Hoh, Paul Khoueir, Michael Y. Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgical FOCUS · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkylosing spondylitisPseudarthrosisSurgeryOsteotomyDeformityKyphosisDysphagiaRadiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ankylosing spondylitis can lead to severe cervical kyphosis, causing problems with forward vision, swallowing, hygiene, patient functionality, and social outlook. Evaluation of patients with cervical flexion deformity includes assessment of global sagittal balance and chin-brow angle. The primary treatment in extreme disabling cases is surgical correction involving a posterior cervical extension osteotomy, which is a technically demanding procedure with considerable risk of neurological injury. To address the potential complications with extension osteotomy, the authors of several reports have described modifications to the surgical technique. These developments incorporate recent advances in anesthesia, neuromonitoring, and spinal instrumentation. Complications associated with the procedure include subluxation at the osteotomy level, spinal cord injury, radiculopathy, dysphagia, and pseudarthrosis. Although the risks of spinal correction are considerable, extension osteotomy remains an effective treatment modality for patients with disabling cervical flexion deformity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations83
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgical FOCUSSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207