MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Real-Time Continuous Intraoperative Electromyographic and Somatosensory Evoked Potential Recordings in Spinal Surgery: Correlation of Clinical and Electrophysiologic Findings in a Prospective, Consecutive Series of 213 Cases

2004· article· en· W2018367896 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 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSomatosensory evoked potentialMedicineElectromyographySomatosensory systemIntraoperative neurophysiological monitoringAnesthesiaEvoked potentialCentral nervous system diseaseProspective cohort studySurgeryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAudiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. Retrospective analysis of a prospectively accrued series of 213 consecutive patients who underwent intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring with electromyography and somatosensory-evoked potentials during thoracolumbar spine surgery. Objectives. To study the incidence of significant intraoperative electrophysiologic changes and new postoperative neurologic deficits. Summary of Background Data. Continuous intraoperative electromyography and somatosensory-evoked potentials are frequently used in spinal surgery to prevent neural injury. However, only limited data are available on the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of intraoperative electrophysiologic changes with regard to the occurrence of new postoperative neurologic deficits. Methods. We examined data on patients who underwent intraoperative monitoring with continuous lower limb electromyography and somatosensory-evoked potentials. The analysis focused on the correlation of intraoperative electrophysiologic changes with the development of new neurologic deficits. Results. A total of 213 patients underwent surgery on a total of 378 levels; 32.4% underwent an instrumented fusion. Significant electromyograph activation was observed in 77.5% of the patients and significant somatosensory-evoked potential changes in 6.6%. Fourteen patients (6.6%) had new postoperative neurologic symptoms. Of those, all had significant electromyograph activation, but only 4 had significant somatosensory-evoked potential changes. Intraoperative electromyograph activation had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 23.7% for the detection of a new postoperative neurologic deficit. Somatosensory-evoked potentials had a sensitivity of 28.6% and specificity of 94.7%. Conclusions. Intraoperative electromyographic activation has a high sensitivity for the detection of a newpostoperative neurologic deficit but a low specificity. In contrast, somatosensory-evoked potentials have low sensitivity but high specificity. Combined intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring with electromyography and somatosensory-evoked potentials is helpful for predicting and possibly preventing neurologic injury during thoracolumbar spine surgery. Spine 2004;29:677–684 We studied 213 patients undergoing thoracolumbar surgery and intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring. Significant activation of electromyography occurred in 77.5%. Significant somatosensory-evoked potential changes occurred in 6.6% of the patients. The sensitivity of electromyography to detect new postoperative deficits was high, whereas specificity was low. Somatosensory-evoked potentials had low sensitivity but high specificity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.272 · 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