Cervical disc arthroplasty: a practical overview
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the recent release and upcoming release of several cervical disc replacements, we are potentially at the juncture of a major change in practice habits. The present article reviews the most recent research into the rationale, patient selection, clinical results and complication profile of cervical arthroplasty. Recent results of prospective randomized controlled trials comparing cervical disc replacement and anterior fusion have demonstrated safety as well as equal or superior clinical results. In vivo kinematic studies also suggest decreased rates of adjacent segment disease after disc replacement. Increasingly, more studies are examining the complication profile and emerging contraindications for cervical disc replacement. Cervical arthroplasty is a new technique in its infancy of development. Understanding potential complications and pitfalls will ensure correct patient selection and avoidance of common preventable complications associated with cervical arthroplasty. Although initial results appear promising, long-term data are eagerly awaited before a final decision on the value of this procedure can be made.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 it