MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978345074 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181e7be3a

A Novel Approach to Quantitatively Assess Posttraumatic Cervical Spinal Canal Compromise and Spinal Cord Compression

2010· article· en· W1978345074 on OpenAlexaff
Julio C. Furlan, Ahilan Kailaya-Vasan, Bizhan Aarabi, Michael G. Fehlings

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cordMagnetic resonance imagingSpinal canalSpinal cord compressionSpinal cord injuryCordRetrospective cohort studyComputed tomographicRadiologySurgeryNuclear medicineComputed tomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. Multicenter retrospective study. Objective. To examine whether posttraumatic cervical spinal canal compromise and spinal cord compression are responsive to changes in motor and sensory functions. Summary of Background Data. The maximum canal compromise (MCC) and maximum spinal cord compression (MSCC) were developed to quantitatively assess canal stenosis and spinal cord compression using computed tomographic (CT) scan and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the setting of acute spine trauma. Methods. We included 100 consecutive patients with acute spine trauma. Patients were classified into three groups as follows: patients with acute spine trauma without spinal cord injury (group 1), patients with incomplete spinal cord injury (group 2), and patients with complete spinal cord injury (group 3). We studied three quantitative imaging parameters given as follows: MCC using CT-based measurements, MCC using T1-MRI based measurements, and MSCC using T2-MRI based measurements. Results. There were 78 male patients and 22 female patients with ages from 17 to 82 years (mean age = 45 years). In group 1, there were no significant differences regarding the mean MRI-MCC and MSCC among the spine levels. Although most spine levels were statistically comparable regarding the CT-MCC in patients of group 1, the C7 level significantly differed from the C3 level. Comparisons among all three patient groups showed significant differences regarding the mean MRI-MCC and MSCC, but no significant differences were observed in the mean CT-MCC between groups 1 and 2, and between groups 1 and 3. Data analyses using operating characteristics of each radiologic parameter indicated that only the MRI parameters had consistently optimal cutoff points to distinguish between groups 1 and 2, and between groups 2 and 3. Conclusion. Our results suggest that the MRI-based measurements of canal compromise and spinal cord compression are responsive to changes in motor and sensory functions. However, the MCC using CT-based measurements provides inconsistent results that can result in misdiagnosis in the clinical setting. This multicenter retrospective study examines the responsiveness properties of posttraumatic cervical spinal canal compromise and spinal cord compression. Although the magnetic resonance imaging–based measurements of canal compromise and spinal cord compression are responsive to changes in motor and sensory functions, the maximum canal compromise using computed tomography–based measurements provides unreliable results that can result in misdiagnosis in the clinical setting.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.284 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations45
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207