MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030188306 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181c3e740

Redefining the Technique for the Radiologic Measurement of Slip in Spondylolisthesis

2010· article· en· W2030188306 on OpenAlexaff
Étienne Bourassa-Moreau, Jean‐Marc Mac‐Thiong, Hubert Labelle

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpondylolisthesisMedicineSlip (aerodynamics)VertebraLumbosacral jointRadiographyOrthodonticsPerpendicularAnatomyNuclear medicineSurgeryLumbarGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Comparison of 2 radiographic measurement techniques of slip severity in spondylolisthesis. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the differences between 2 radiologic measurement techniques of slip severity in L5-S1 developmental spondylolisthesis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Different techniques for the assessment of slip in spondylolisthesis have been described in the literature, resulting in 2 different methods to report the position of the L5 vertebra on the S1 superior endplate. The clinical impact of these differences in slip measurement is unknown. METHODS: Radiographs of 130 subjects with developmental spondylolisthesis were reviewed. Two different techniques were used to assess the grade and percentage of slip. The technique 1 uses a line drawn from the L5 vertebra postero-inferior corner that is perpendicular to the S1 vertebra endplate. The technique 2 uses a line tangential to the L5 vertebra posterior wall that intersects the S1 vertebra endplate. The lumbosacral angle (LSA) was also measured to assess the orientation of L5 over S1. The slip percentage and grade obtained from the 2 techniques were compared. The influence of the LSA on the measurement of slip severity was also assessed. RESULTS: A significant difference (P < 10(-5)) was found between technique 1 (mean = 34.2% +/- 32.6%) and technique 2 (mean = 42.5% +/- 25.8%) with respect to the slip percentage. Eight subjects were found to switch classification from a low to a high-grade slip (or inversely) depending on the technique used. There was a significant relationship between the LSA and the difference in the measurement of slip percentage using either technique 1 or technique 2. CONCLUSION: The 2 measurement techniques can have a significant impact on the interpretation of slip severity in spondylolisthesis. The differences between the measurement techniques are influenced by the orientation of L5 over S1 and could potentially affect the clinical decision making. It is important to standardize and specify the technique used to plan and assess interventions in L5-S1 developmental spondylolisthesis.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations24
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207