MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modeling of the Sagittal Cervical Spine as a Method to Discriminate Hypolordosis

2004· article· en· W1975061648 on OpenAlexaff
Donald D. Harrison, Deed E. Harrison, Tadeusz J. Janik, René Cailliet, Joseph R. Ferrantelli, Jason W. Haas, Burt Holland

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSagittal planeCobb angleRadiographyNeck painCervical vertebraeOrthodonticsAnatomyDisplacement (psychology)LordosisGeometrySurgeryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Computer analysis of digitized vertebral body corners on lateral cervical radiographs. OBJECTIVES: Using elliptical and circular modeling, the geometric shape of the path of the posterior bodies of C2-C7 was sought in normal, acute pain, and chronic pain subjects. To determine the least squares error per point for paths of geometric shapes, minor axis to major axis elliptical ratios (b/a), Cobb angles, sagittal balance of C2 above C7, and posterior tangent segmental and global angles. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: When restricted to cervical lordotic configurations, normal, acute pain, and chronic pain subjects have not been compared for similarities or differences of these parameters. Conventional Cobb angles provide only a comparison of the endplates of the distal vertebrae, while geometric modeling provides the shape of the entire sagittal curves, the orientation of the spine, and segmental angles. METHODS: Radiographs of 72 normal subjects, 52 acute neck pain subjects, and 70 chronic neck pain subjects were digitized. For normal subjects, the inclusion criteria were no kyphotic cervical segments, no cranial-cervical symptoms, and less than +/- 10 mm horizontal displacement of C2 above C7. In pain subjects, inclusion criteria were no kyphotic cervical segments and less than 25 mm of horizontal displacement of C2 above C7. Measurements included segmental angles, global angles of lordosis (C1-C7 and C2-C7), height-to-length ratios, anterior weight bearing, and from modeling, circular center, and radius of curvature. RESULTS: In the normal group, a family of ellipses was found to closely approximate the posterior body margins of C2-C7 with a least squares error of less than 1 mm per vertebral body point. The only ellipse/circle found to include T1, with a least squares error of less than 1 mm, was a circle. Compared with the normal group, the pain group's mean radiographic angles were reduced and the radius of curvature was larger. For normal, acute, and chronic pain groups, the mean angles between posterior tangents on C2-C7 were 34.5 degrees, 28.6 degrees, and 22.0 degrees, C2-C7 Cobb angles were 26.8 degrees, 16.5 degrees, and 12.7 degrees, and radius of curvature were r = 132.8 mm, r = 179 mm, and r = 245.4 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The mean cervical lordosis for all groups could be closely modeled with a circle. Pain groups had hypolordosis and larger radiuses of curvature compared with the normal group. Circular modeling may be a valuable tool in the discrimination between normal lordosis and hypolordosis in normal and pain subjects.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations209
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207