Arachnoiditis ossificans associated with syringomyelia: An unusual cause of myelopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The pathophysiology of arachnoiditis ossificans (AO) and its association with syringomyelia remains a rare and poorly understood phenomenon. Here, we present a case of AO associated with syringomyelia, a review of literature, and a discussion of current understanding of disease pathophysiology. METHODS: A literature review was performed using MEDLINE (January 1900-May 2010) and Embase (January 1900-May 2010) to identify all English-language studies that described AO with syringomyelia. The current report was added to published cases. RESULTS: Over 50 cases of AO are reported in literature, of which only eight are associated with syringomyelia. The various presumptive etiologies of syrinx formation include abnormalities in blood circulation, ischemia, hydrodynamic alternations in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) flow, tissue damage, or incidental coexistence. Changing CSF dynamics related to decreased compliance of the subarachnoid space and subsequent paracentral dissection of the spinal cord may be implicated in the disease process. magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning may identify the syrinx but fail to diagnose the calcified arachnoid. Five patients, including the current case, improved clinically following laminectomy and decompression. CONCLUSIONS: Syringomyelia in association in AO is a rare phenomenon. A high index of suspicion is required and both MRI and computed tomography (CT) are recommended for diagnosis. The pathophysiology of syringomyelia in AO remains an area of ongoing research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".