MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995779692 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3182022ddc

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

2010· review· en· W1995779692 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLumbarSurgeryBlood lossSpinal fusionLumbar vertebraeLumbar spine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. Review of published literature. Objective. To review the available medical literature reporting results after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) and evaluate functional and radiographic outcomes with those following open TLIF and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) procedures. Summary of Background Data. Minimally invasive spine techniques aim to reduce approach-related surgical morbidity without compromising operative and clinical outcomes. MIS TLIF is increasingly being used for the management of various lumbar degenerative diseases. Despite the limited number of well-designed clinical studies, the available published data suggest potential advantages over its open posterior-approach lumbar interbody fusion counterparts. Such benefits include less intraoperative blood loss, less need for blood transfusions, shorter hospital course, and less postoperative pain. Methods. Literature examining posterior-approach interbody fusion techniques (PLIF, TLIF, and MIS TLIF) was collected using the National Center for Biotechnology Information database and PubMed/MEDLINE, and summarized for discussion. Results. Literature reports of MIS TLIF generally show comparable or improved clinical outcomes when compared with those following open posterior interbody fusion techniques. Additionally, significantly less blood loss, hospital stay, and complications were generally reported, despite slightly longer duration of surgery, especially during early cases in a surgeon's experience. Conclusion. More studies designed to provide class I or II data will be needed in the future to further solidify the favorable results observed so far with the MIS TLIF procedure. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedure is increasingly being used for the management of various lumbar degenerative diseases. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion has significant benefits such as less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative pain. However, more studies are needed to further elucidate its potential clinical benefits.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.318 · 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