MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976584250 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e31816b88a4

Threshold Cervical Range-of-Motion Necessary to Detect Abnormal Intervertebral Motion in Cervical Spine Radiographs

2008· article· en· W1976584250 on OpenAlexaff
HoSun Hwang, John A. Hipp, Peleg Ben‐Galim, Charles A. Reitman

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSagittal planeRadiographyRange of motionCadaverDisplacement (psychology)Cervical vertebraeCervical spineSoft tissueInstant centre of rotationOrthodonticsAnatomyRotation (mathematics)RadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Whole human cadaver model to assess a common diagnostic test for cervical spine stability. OBJECTIVE: Determine criteria that can be used to determine if sagittal plane angular motion of the head/neck during a cervical spine flexion/extension study is adequate to reliably assess intervertebral motion (IVM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Flexion/Extension radiographs of the cervical spine are commonly used to help identify specific abnormalities in IVM. Several authors have recognized that inadequate patient effort can make flexion/extension studies unreliable, but validated guidelines for assessing the adequacy of these studies are not available. METHODS: Increasingly severe anterior-to-posterior (N = 6), and posterior-to-anterior (N = 6) soft tissue injuries were simulated in the cervical spines of 12 human cadavers. Sagittal plane radiographic images were taken with 4 gradually increasing amounts of overall flexion and extension motion of the head. IVM was measured for each level of sagittal plane rotation of the head/neck using previously validated computer-assisted methods. RESULTS: With less than 60 degrees of sagittal plane rotation of the head/neck, intervertebral rotation or displacement was almost never greater than the 95% confidence interval previously established for asymptomatic people. Even with 60 degrees or more motion, intervertebral rotation and displacement were within normal limits after extensive damage to the soft-tissues. The center-of-rotation was the most sensitive measure for detecting soft tissue damage. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that clinicians should make sure patients can flex and extend their head/neck to a minimum range of 60 degrees before evaluating them for a dynamic motion study to assess cervical spine stability. Even with adequate motion, interverterbral rotation and translation can remain within normal limits in the presence of extensive soft tissue damage. The most sensitive measure for detecting soft tissue damage was center-of-rotation although it lacks specificity, particularly in the presence of underlying degenerative changes, and is not readily assessed in most clinical situations.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations28
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207