MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Artificial Nucleus Replacement

2002· article· en· W2009630598 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter M. Klara, Charles D. Ray

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDegenerative disc diseaseFood and drug administrationSurgeryInvestigational device exemptionClinical trialIntervertebral discLumbarPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prosthetic disc nucleus is designed to help treat patients suffering from degenerative disc disease. The device consists of a hydrogel core that is encased in a polyethylene jacket and is intended to restore disc height while permitting normal range of motion. Clinical trials for the prosthetic disc nucleus were first conducted in 1996, and the device was found to be effective in most of the patients that were implanted. Additional trials in 1997-1998 were less successful, with 38% of patients requiring revision surgery because of device migration. Subsequent changes were made to device shapes and to the surgical protocol to facilitate implantation, thereby eliminating the high device migration rates. Following these modifications, the success rate for the device has improved significantly. Clinical data show excellent results with marked improvements in Oswestry and Prolo scores. Overall, disc height measurements have been well maintained within normal physiologic ranges. The prosthetic disc nucleus device is currently undergoing clinical trials in Canada, and an IDE application to the Food and Drug Administration was expected in the fall, 2001.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.006

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations170
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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