Assessment of Spinal Cord Compression by Magnetic Resonance Imaging—Can It Predict Surgical Outcomes in Degenerative Compressive Myelopathy? A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: We sought to conduct a systematic review to examine the role of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting outcomes after surgery and to evaluate the evidence currently available critically. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Degenerative compressive myelopathy is a common clinical problem associated with adverse health outcomes. Although a number of studies have investigated the association between preoperative magnetic resonance imaging characteristics and outcomes after surgery for degenerative compressive myelopathy, the conclusions of these studies have often yielded differing results. METHODS: Articles examining the predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging were obtained from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases (1980-2011). Thirty publications that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed. Two reviewers independently assessed each study regarding the level of evidence (using the criteria proposed by Sackett) and methodological quality based on revised Cochrane quality assessment checklist. RESULTS: Three excellent, 1 good, and 10 poor quality studies assessed cord compression--transverse area (4), compression ratio (5), and anteroposterior diameter (1). Relationship between signal intensity (SI) changes and surgical outcomes were reviewed by 28 studies--8 excellent, 9 good, and 13 poor quality studies. SI changes within the spinal cord included the presence of SI on T2-weighted image (WI) (17), area of SI on T2WI (8), degree of SI on T2WI (5), presence of SI on both T1-/T2WI (2), SI ratio on T2WI (2), and the position of SI on T2WI (1). CONCLUSION: Based on a combination of excellent and good quality studies, transverse area correlates with recovery ratio but not with postoperative functional score assessed by Japanese Orthopaedic Association/modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores. SI changes defined by (1) its presence on T2WI, (2) its extent (focal or multisegmental), (3) its brightness, and (4) its presence on both T1-/T2WI can predict surgical outcomes in degenerative compressive myelopathy.
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 | 0.024 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".