MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Radiographic Measurement Parameters in Thoracolumbar Fractures: A Systematic Review and Consensus Statement of the Spine Trauma Study Group

2006· review· en· W2005964829 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 · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiographySagittal planeRadiological weaponCobb angleEvidence-based medicinePhysical therapyOrthodonticsSurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. Systematic review. Objectives. To review the various radiographic parameters currently used to assess traumatic thoracolumbar injuries, emphasizing the validity and technique behind each one, to formulate evidence-based guidelines for a standardized radiographic method of assessment of these fractures. Summary of Background Data. The treatment of thoracolumbar fractures is guided by various radiographic measurement parameters. Unfortunately, for each group of parameters, there has usually been more than 1 proposed measurement technique, thus creating confusion when gathering data and reporting outcomes. Ultimately, this effect results in clinical decisions being based on nonstandardized, nonvalidated outcome measures. Methods. Computerized bibliographic databases were searched up to January 2004 using key words and Medical Subject Headings on thoracolumbar spine trauma, radiographic parameters, and methodologic terms. Using strict inclusion criteria, 2 independent reviewers conducted study selection, data abstraction, and methodologic quality assessment. Results. There were 18 original articles that ultimately constituted the basis for the review. Of radiographic measurement parameters, 3 major groups were identified, depicting the properties of the injured spinal column: sagittal alignment, vertebral body compression, and spinal canal dimensions, with 14 radiographic parameters reported to assess these properties. Conclusions. Based on a systematic review of theliterature and expert opinion from an experienced group of spine trauma surgeons, it is recommended that the following radiographic parameters should be used routinely to assess thoracolumbar fractures: the Cobb angle, to assess sagittal alignment; vertebral body translation percentage, to express traumatic anterolisthesis; anterior vertebral body compression percentage, to assess vertebral body compression, the sagittal-to-transverse canal diameter ratio, and canal total cross-sectional area (measured or calculated); and the percent canal occlusion, to assess canal dimensions. The treatment of thoracolumbar fractures is guided by various radiographic measurement parameters. The optimal parameters from a practical and epidemiologic perspective have not been well defined in the literature. Therefore, a systematic review of the various radiographic parameters currently used to assess thoracolumbar fractures was performed, and recommended guidelines regarding which parameters and measurement techniques should be adopted universally are discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.314 · 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