In the Eye of the Beholder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".