A Systematic Review of Definitions and Classification Systems of Adjacent Segment Pathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To undertake a systematic review to determine how "adjacent segment degeneration," "adjacent segment disease," or clinical pathological processes that serve as surrogates for adjacent segment pathology are classified and defined in the peer-reviewed literature. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease are terms referring to degenerative changes known to occur after reconstructive spine surgery, most commonly at an immediately adjacent functional spinal unit. These can include disc degeneration, instability, spinal stenosis, facet degeneration, and deformity. The true incidence and clinical impact of degenerative changes at the adjacent segment is unclear because there is lack of a universally accepted classification system that rigorously addresses clinical and radiological issues. METHODS: A systematic review of the English language literature was undertaken and articles were classified using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. RESULTS.: Seven classification systems of spinal degeneration, including degeneration at the adjacent segment, were identified. None have been evaluated for reliability or validity specific to patients with degeneration at the adjacent segment. The ways in which terms related to adjacent segment "degeneration" or "disease" are defined in the peer-reviewed literature are highly variable. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the systematic review presented in this article, no formal classification system for either cervical or thoracolumbar adjacent segment disorders currently exists. CONSENSUS STATEMENT: No recommendations regarding the use of current classification of degeneration at any segments can be made based on the available literature. A new comprehensive definition for adjacent segment pathology (ASP, the now preferred terminology) has been proposed in this Focus Issue, which reflects the diverse pathology observed at functional spinal units adjacent to previous spinal reconstruction and balances detailed stratification with clinical utility. A comprehensive classification system is being developed through expert opinion and will require validation as well as peer review. Strength of Statement: Strong.
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 | 0.050 | 0.167 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".