MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980540655 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3182233969

Reliability of the Spinal Deformity Study Group Classification of Lumbosacral Spondylolisthesis

2011· article· en· W1980540655 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Marc Mac‐Thiong, Luc Duong, Stefan Parent, M. Timothy Hresko, John R. Dimar, Mark Weidenbaum, Hubert Labelle

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpondylolisthesisLumbosacral jointPelvisSacrumRadiographySpinal deformityDeformityOrthodonticsKyphosisNuclear medicineSurgeryRadiologyLumbar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Reliability study of the computer-assisted SDSG (Spinal Deformity Study Group) classification of lumbosacral spondylolisthesis. OBJECTIVE: To assess the intra- and interobserver reliability of the computer-assisted SDSG classification of lumbosacral spondylolisthesis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The SDSG has proposed a new classification of lumbosacral spondylolisthesis based on slip grade, pelvic incidence (PI), and sacro-pelvic and spinal balance. Three types of low-grade spondylolisthesis are described: low PI (type 1), normal PI (type 2), and high PI (type 3). High-grade spondylolisthesis are defined as type 4 (balanced sacro-pelvis), type 5 (retroverted sacro-pelvis with balanced spine), and type 6 (retroverted sacro-pelvis with unbalanced spine). METHODS: Full-length standing lateral radiographs of the spine of 40 subjects with lumbosacral spondylolisthesis were reviewed twice by 7 observers. Custom software was used by the observers to identify 7 anatomical landmarks on each radiograph to determine the SDSG type for all subjects. Percentage of agreement and κ coefficients were used to determine the intra- and interobserver reliability. RESULTS: All 6 types of spondylolisthesis described in the computer-assisted SDSG classification were identified. Overall intra- and interobserver agreements were 80% (κ: 0.74) and 71% (κ: 0.65), respectively. The intra- and interobserver agreements associated with computerized determination of slip grade were 92% (κ: 0.83) and 88% (κ: 0.78), respectively. As for computerized determination of sacro-pelvic and spinal balance, intra- and interobserver agreements were 86% (κ: 0.76) and 75% (κ: 0.63) for low-grade slips, whereas they were 88% (κ: 0.80) and 83% (κ: 0.75) for high-grade slips. CONCLUSION: Substantial intra- and interobserver reliability was found for the computer-assisted SDSG classification, and all 6 types of lumbosacral spondylolisthesis were identified. Refinement of the computer-assisted classification technique is, however, needed to further increase the reliability of the SDSG classification and facilitate its clinical use.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations67
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207