MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001327440 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181ac9166

Outcome After Surgical Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

2009· article· en· W2001327440 on OpenAlexaff
Lars Westergaard, John Hauerberg, Jacob Bertram Springborg

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLumbar spinal stenosisNeurogenic claudicationOswestry Disability IndexSurgeryDecompressionLumbarSpinal stenosisPhysical therapyLow back pain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. A prospective clinical study. Objectives. To investigate the predictive value of the lumbar extension test for outcome after surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Summary of Background Data. Studies have indicated that aggravation of the symptoms from LSS by extension of the lumbar spine has predictive value for the outcome after decompression. The aim of this study was to investigate this theory in a larger group of patients. Methods. One hundred forty-six consecutive patients surgically treated for LSS were included in the study. The clinical condition was recorded before surgery and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery using 3 different scoring systems: Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, Neurogenic Claudication Outcome Score, and Oswestry Disability Index. The group of patients with preoperative aggravation of the symptoms by the lumbar extension test, (positive extension test), was compared with the group of patients without aggravation by the test, (negative extension test). Results. Before surgery, patients with a positive extension test scored significantly worse on all disability scoring systems than patients with a negative test. However, the extension test itself had no prognostic value for the overall outcome after lumbar decompression. Using regression models with the 2-year Oswestry Disability Index as dependent variable, only before surgery self-reported health and age were found to have prognostic significance. Conclusion. The lumbar extension test has no predictive value for the outcome after surgical treatment of LSS. To investigate the prognostic value of the lumbar extension test, 146 consecutive patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were followed for 2 years by means of 3 different scoring systems. Using regression models, only before surgery self-reported health and age were found to have prognostic significance. The lumbar extension test itself has no predictive value for the outcome after surgical decompression.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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