Uncovertebral Anatomic Midline Targeting for Cervical Disc Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Design Prospective observational cohort. Objective To document the accuracy of uncovertebral anatomic targeting in positioning cervical disc arthroplasty. Summary of Background Data Disc arthroplasty implants depend on midline placement for optimum mechanical function. Fluoroscopy is used to delineate the midline. Anatomic targeting from the uncovertebral joints in the neck may be adequate. We have investigated the efficacy of uncovertebral anatomic targeting for cervical disc arthroplasty. Methods Anatomic uncovertebral midline targeting for disc arthroplasty insertion was performed in 18 male (mean age 51 years, range 27 to 67) and 22 female (mean age 50, range 35 to 70) patients receiving a total of 59 implants over a 5-year period. Device insertion was under only lateral imaging control. Postinsertion operative fluoroscopy with optimized centering was used to record implant position in the anteroposterior plane, and centerline analysis was performed using cursor measurement technology from the GE PACS™ imaging system (GE Medical Systems, Mt. Prospect, IL). Results Analysis found a mean deviation from the ideal midline placement of only 0.7 mm (range, 0 to 2.9 mm). Only three devices were more than 2 mm off the anatomic midline. Conclusion This anatomic technique is effective, safely minimizing imaging resource needs and X-ray exposure to the patient and operating team.
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) | 0.001 | 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".