MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Retrospective Radiographic Analysis of Subaxial Sagittal Alignment After Posterior C1–C2 Fusion

2004· article· en· W2033226460 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSubluxationSagittal planeRadiographySpinal fusionKyphosisRange of motionSurgeryOrthodonticsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Subaxial sagittal alignment following atlantoaxial (A-A) posterior fusion was investigated retrospectively in patients with A-A subluxation. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association between A-A fusion angle and postoperative subaxial sagittal alignment and to determine the optimal fusion angle for preservation of physiologic subaxial alignment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A-A posterior fusion has been used for patients with A-A instability and provided satisfactory clinical results. However, there are patients showing unexpected development of subaxial kyphosis after surgery. The reasons for subaxial kyphosis after A-A fusion remain unclear. METHODS: Seventy-six patients with A-A subluxation who underwent several types of posterior A-A fusion were involved. There were 46 women and 30 men. The causes of A-A subluxation were rheumatoid arthritis in 47, trauma in 16, os odontoideum in 8, and unknown in 5. The methods of posterior fusion consisted of Magerl procedure with posterior wiring in 51, Brooks wiring in 18, and Halifax clamp in 7. Angles at C1-C2, C2-C7, and C1-C7 in the neural position were measured before surgery and at the final follow-up to find out any association between postoperative C2-C7 angle and the other radiologic parameters. The association between O-C1 range of motion and C2-C7 angle was also investigated. RESULTS: The mean angles of C1-C2, C2-C7, and C1-C7 before surgery were 18.4 degrees, 14.5 degrees, and 32.9 degrees, respectively. Those at the final follow-up were 26.0 degrees, 5.5 degrees, and 31.5 degrees, respectively. These results indicated that C1-C2 fixation in a hyperlordotic position led to a subaxial kyphosis after surgery. Statistics showed that there was a linear association between the C1-C2 lordotic fixation angle and the C2-C7 kyphotic angle. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical fixation of A-A joint in a hyperlordotic position will lead the lower cervical spine to a kyphotic sagittal alignment after surgery. To maintain the physiologic sagittal alignment of the subaxial cervical spine, C1-C2 should not be fixed in a hyperlordotic position.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.262 · 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