MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001081099 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181b77f2d

In the Eye of the Beholder

2009· article· en· W2001081099 on OpenAlexafffundabout
S. Samuel Bederman, Nizar N. Mahomed, Hans J. Kreder, Warren J. McIsaac, Peter C. Coyte, James G. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersYork UniversityCanadian Spine Society
KeywordsMedicineOrthopedic surgeryLumbarPreferencePhysical therapyBack painSurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Survey to all orthopedic and neurosurgeons, a random sample of family physicians (FPs) and patients in Ontario, Canada. OBJECTIVE: To identify the dominant clinical factors influencing patient and physician preferences for lumbar spinal surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Surgery on the degenerative lumbar spine offers significant benefit for patients with moderate-severe symptoms failing nonoperative treatment. Referring FPs have little appreciation of factors that identify the ideal surgical candidate. Differences in preferences may lead to wide variation in referrals and impedes the shared decision-making process. METHODS: We used conjoint analysis, a rigorous method for eliciting preferences, to determine the importance that respondents place on decisions for lumbar spinal surgery. We identified 6 clinical factors (walking tolerance, pain duration, severity, neurologic symptoms, typical onset, and dominant location of pain) and presented hypothetical vignettes to participants who rated their preference for surgery. Data were analyzed using random-effects ordered probit regression models and the importance of each clinical factor relative to the others was determined. RESULTS: We obtained responses from 131 surgeons, 202 FPs, and 164 patients. We found that FPs had the highest overall preferences for surgery and surgeons had the lowest. Surgeons placed the highest importance on the location of pain. FPs considered neurologic symptoms, walking tolerance, and severity to be of similar importance. Pain severity, walking tolerance, and duration of pain were the most important factors for patients in deciding for surgery. Orthopedic (over neurosurgical) surgeons had a lower preference for surgery (P < 0.05). Older patients (P < 0.03) and previous surgical consultation (P < 0.03) had greater patient preferences for surgery. CONCLUSION: Different preferences for surgery exist between surgeons, FPs, and patients. FPs may reduce over- and under-referrals by appreciating surgeons' importance on location of pain (leg vs. back). Surgeons and FPs may improve the shared decision-making process by understanding that patients place high importance on quality of life symptoms.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations55
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207