MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974765872 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3182a8c2da

Nerve Root Sedimentation Sign for the Diagnosis of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

2013· article· en· W1974765872 on OpenAlexaff
Christy Tomkins‐Lane, Douglas J. Quint, Shaun Gabriel, Markus Melloh, Andrew J. Haig

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of Michigan
KeywordsMedicineAsymptomaticLumbar spinal stenosisClaudicationNeurogenic claudicationNerve rootRadiologyMagnetic resonance imagingLow back painErythrocyte sedimentation rateStenosisLumbarSpinal stenosisSurgeryVascular diseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. Retrospective review of magnetic resonance images. Objective. Examine the diagnostic accuracy, discriminative ability, and reliability of the sedimentation sign in a sample of patients with clinically diagnosed lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), low back pain (LBP), and vascular claudication, and in asymptomatic controls. Summary of Background Data. The nerve root sedimentation sign (SedSign) was recently described as a new diagnostic test for LSS; however, the degree to which this sign is sensitive and specific in diagnosis of LSS is unknown. Methods. All LSS images were obtained from subjects who had clinically diagnosed LSS confirmed on imaging by a spine specialist. The other images were obtained from people with LBP but no LSS, people with severe vascular claudication, and asymptomatic participants. Three blinded raters independently assessed the images. A positive sign was defined as the absence of nerve root sedimentation at the level above or below the level of maximum stenosis. Results. Images from 148 subjects were reviewed (67 LSS, 31 LBP, 4 vascular, and 46 asymptomatic). Intrarater reliability for the sign ranged from κ= 0.87 to 0.97 and inter-rater reliability from 0.62 to 0.69. Sensitivity ranged from 42% to 66%, and specificity ranged from 49% to 78%. Sensitivity improved to a range of 60% to 96% when images with only a smallest cross-sectional area of the dural sac less than 80 mm2 were included. The sign was able to differentiate (P = 0.004) between LSS and asymptomatic controls but not between LSS and LBP or between LSS and vascular claudication. Conclusion. The SedSign was shown to have high intrarater reliability and acceptable inter-rater reliability. The Sign appears most sensitive in defining severe LSS cases, yet may not aid in the differential diagnosis of LSS from LBP or vascular claudication, or add any specific diagnostic information beyond the traditional history, physical examination, and imaging studies that are standard in LSS diagnosis. Level of Evidence: 4 The sedimentation sign was shown to have high intrarater reliability and appears most sensitive in defining severe lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) cases. Yet, this sign may not aid in the differential diagnosis of LSS from low back pain or vascular claudication or add any specific diagnostic information beyond the history, physical examination, and imaging studies that are standard in LSS diagnosis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations35
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207