MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978492246 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181891822

Is the Lumbar Modifier Useful in Surgical Decision Making?

2008· article· en· W1978492246 on OpenAlexaff
Firoz Miyanji, Jeff Pawelek, Scott Van Valin, Vidyadhar V. Upasani, Peter O. Newton

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsRoyal Columbian Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronal planeRadiographyScoliosisVertebraDeformityCohen's kappaLumbarPelvic tiltKappaTilt (camera)Idiopathic scoliosisOrthodonticsNuclear medicineRadiologySurgeryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical deformity and radiographic features of Lenke 1A and 1B curves to determine if the "A" and "B" lumbar modifiers actually describe 2 distinct curve patterns. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The Lenke classification system attempts to address some of the shortcomings of the King-Moe classification system by providing a more comprehensive, reliable, and treatment-based categorization of all AIS deformities. Although this classification is useful in determining which regions of the spine should be fused, it does not necessarily divide AIS curves into distinct patterns. METHODS: A critical analysis of the clinical deformity, radiographic features, and surgical treatment of AIS patients with Lenke 1A and 1B right thoracic curves was performed. Lenke 1A curves were differentiated according to the L4 coronal plane tilt. Analysis of variance and Pearson chi analysis were used to perform statistical comparisons between the individual curve patterns (P < or = 0.05). RESULTS: Ninety-three patients with preoperative and 2-year postoperative data were included in this analysis (65 Lenke 1A, and 28 Lenke 1B). Thirty-three patients were subdivided as 1A-L (L4 tilted to the left) and 32 patients were subdivided as 1A-R (L4 tilted to the right). The interobserver reliability for determining the direction of L4 tilt was excellent (kappa = 0.94, P < or = 0.001). Patients with 1A-L curves were similar to patients with 1B curves with respect to the L4 tilt and the location of the stable vertebra (most often in the thoracolumbar junction). In contrast, patients with 1A-R curves had a more distal stable vertebra (most often L3 or L4). The surgical treatment also differed between these 2 groups with regards to the lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV). 1A-L and 1B curves were similar with a median LIV of T12, whereas the 1A-R curves had a more distal median LIV of L2 (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Two Lenke 1A curve patterns can be described based on the direction of the L4 tilt. This distinction has ramifications regarding selection of fusion levels and assessing surgical outcomes. The A and B lumbar modifiers do not describe 2 distinct curve types within the Lenke 1 group; however, the tilt direction of L4 does allow subdivision of the Lenke 1A curves into 2 distinguishable patterns (1A-R and 1A-L). The 1A-L curves are similar to 1B curves and different in form and treatment from the 1A-R pattern.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations57
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207