MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Radiographic Analysis of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Adult Isthmic Spondylolisthesis

2003· article· en· W2022728001 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Kwon, Scott C. Berta, Scott D. Daffner, Alexander R. Vaccaro, Alan S. Hilibrand, Jonathan N. Grauer, John M. Beiner, Todd J. Albert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaInternational Collaboration On Repair Discoveries
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpondylolisthesisRadiographyLordosisSagittal planeLumbarSpinal fusionSpondylolysisOrthodonticsSurgeryPelvic tiltAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The radiographs of 35 consecutive adult patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis who underwent a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with one or two Brantigan carbon fiber cages and pedicle screw instrumentation were evaluated. Anterolisthesis, disk space height, and slip angle were measured in preoperative and postoperative standing neutral radiographs. Anterolisthesis was reduced and disk space height was increased with the TLIF procedure. Average slip angle, however, was not significantly altered. The restoration of lordosis across the listhetic disk space correlated with a more anterior placement of the interbody cage within the disk space. The TLIF technique, performed with the Brantigan cage and pedicle screw instrumentation, appears to be able to restore disk height and reduce forward translation in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis, but improvement in sagittal alignment is dependent upon anterior placement of the interbody device.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations141
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Spinal Disorders & TechniquesSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207