Predictors of Surgical Outcome in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether magnetic resonance imaging and clinical and demographic findings in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) were independently associated with baseline functional scores and whether these were also predictive of postoperative functional outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There are considerable limitations in current literature that prevent making formal recommendations regarding the use of clinical and radiological prognostic factors in patients with CSM. METHODS: This prospective study included 65 consecutive patients with CSM treated in a tertiary referral center. The modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scale was used to quantify disability at admission and at 12-month follow-up. Age, sex, duration of symptoms, severity of myelopathy, spinal column alignment, surgical technique, levels of compression, anteroposterior diameter and transverse area at the site of maximal cord compression, and magnetic resonance imaging signal intensity changes were assessed. Data were analyzed using Spearman rank correlation test, analysis of variance, Mann-Whitney U test, and stepwise multivariate regression. RESULTS: Higher baseline mJOA scores were associated with younger age (P = 0.0002), shorter duration of symptoms (P = 0.03), and greater transverse area (P = 0.02). Better recovery ratio was associated with younger age (P = 0.005) and higher baseline mJOA score (P = 0.003). Greater changes in mJOA score were associated with higher baseline mJOA score (P < 0.0001). Using multivariate analysis, the functional outcomes after surgery were best predicted by baseline mJOA score and age of patient. CONCLUSION: Age and baseline mJOA scores were highly predictive of outcome for patients undergoing surgical treatment of CSM. The degree of spinal cord compression and patterns of signal intensity changes on T1/T2 weighted images were not independently predictive of outcome, but it was found to correlate with the functional status at the time of presentation and age of the patient. The duration of symptoms correlated well with preoperative functional status but did not seem to affect the postoperative outcome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".