Do Patient Expectations of Spinal Surgery Relate to Functional Outcome?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is important for surgeons to understand patients' expectations for surgery. We asked whether patient factors and preoperative functional outcome scores reflect the degree of expectations patients have for posterior spinal surgery. Second, we asked whether patients' expectations for surgery predict improvements in functional outcome scores after surgery. We prospectively enrolled 155 consecutive surgical patients with greater than 90% followup. Patients' expectations were evaluated preoperatively along with SF-36 and Oswestry disability questionnaires. Postoperatively (6 months for decompression; 1 year for fusions), we quantified patient-derived satisfaction regarding whether expectations were met and by patient-derived functional outcome scores. In patients undergoing decompression, gender, SF-36 general health domain, and SF-36 physical component score predicted patients with high expectations for surgery. Patients with high expectations also reported greater postoperative improvements in SF-36 role physical domain scores after surgery. Expectations for surgery were met in 81% of patients. In a subset of patients (21 of 143), expectations were not met. These patients reported lower mean preoperative SF-36 general health, vitality, and mean mental component scores.
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 | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".