Outcome Evaluation of Surgical and Nonsurgical Management of Lumbar Disc Protrusion Causing Radiculopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) following either lumbar discectomy or nonoperative care for lumbar disc protrusion causing radiculopathy (LDPR). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although LDPR is a prevalent disorder, little progress has been made in defining the optimal treatment strategy. METHODS: A total of 497 patients (333 in the lumbar discectomy group and 164 in the nonoperative group) were analyzed. Patients completed baseline as well as 6- and 12-month generic (SF-36) and disease-specific (NASS Lumbar Spine Instrument) HRQOL measures. Demographic comparisons between groups, using standard descriptive statistics, were made. Multivariate analysis was used to obtain a regression coefficient for the primary outcome: the neurogenic symptoms score (NSS) from the NASS instrument. Outcome measures were compared between groups and to published normative data. RESULTS: The mean baseline score was lower in the surgical group (30.9 nonoperative, 25.3 surgical), indicative of greater baseline disability. The scores at follow-up were approximately equivalent (44.6 nonoperative, 43.8 surgical). However, neither group returned to an age-matched normative NSS (51.6) within the timeframe of the study. Using regression analysis, the outcome "change in NSS" was not associated with variable "treatment group." CONCLUSIONS: HRQOL after LDPR, as measured in this study by NASS NSS, demonstrated similar improvement in both groups and was not meaningfully associated with the treatment received, within the timeframe of this study. At follow-up, all outcome measures remained lower than population normative scores, suggesting that, irrespective of treatment, an element of disability remained.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".