Patterns of Care After Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Spine in Primary Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To examine health care services use after a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the lumbosacral or cervical spine ordered by a primary care physician. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The use of MRI of the spine in the primary care setting is increasing, yet little is known about the relationship between MRI scan findings and subsequent patterns of health care utilization. METHODS: Linkage of records from an audit of outpatient MRI scans of the spine performed in Ontario, Canada, to administrative databases. RESULTS: Of the 647 patients who had a lumbosacral spine MRI scan ordered by a primary care physician, 288 (44.5%) were seen in consultation by an orthopedic surgeon or neurosurgeon, and 42 (6.5%) received spine surgery during 3 years of follow-up. Of the 373 patients who had a cervical spine MRI scan ordered by a primary care physician, 164 (44.0%) were seen in consultation by an orthopedic surgeon or neurosurgeon, and none had spine surgery during 3 years of follow-up. Patients with severe disc herniation (likelihood ratio, 5.62, 95% confidence interval, 2.64-12.00) or severe spinal stenosis (likelihood ratio, 2.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-4.85) on lumbosacral spine MRI were more likely to undergo subsequent surgery. However, many patients with these MRI abnormalities did not receive surgery, and the absence of these MRI findings did not significantly lower the likelihood of subsequent surgery. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving MRI scans of the spine in the primary care setting are frequently referred for surgical assessment and most do not receive subsequent surgery. MRI scan results do not discriminate very well between those who will and will not undergo surgery, suggesting that alternative models for the assessment of patients with spinal complaints in primary care should be explored, particularly in jurisdictions with long wait times for elective spinal surgery consultation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".