MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035057308 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e31827e8ecd

The Sedimentation Sign for Differential Diagnosis of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

2012· article· en· W2035057308 on OpenAlexaff
Luciana Macedo, Yue Wang, Michele C. Battié

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLumbar spinal stenosisClaudicationSpinal stenosisStenosisLumbarNeurogenic claudicationRadiologyLow back painDifferential diagnosisErythrocyte sedimentation rateLumbar vertebraeSurgeryVascular diseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. Cross-sectional cohort study. Objective. To evaluate the diagnostic value of the sedimentation sign further by assessing its performance on the differential diagnosis of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and other lumbar conditions with similar clinical presentations. Summary of Background Data. Recently, a new test using MR imaging, the sedimentation sign, was introduced to aid in the diagnosis of LSS. The initial testing demonstrated that the sign was positive in 100% of patients with LSS with decreased walking ability and dural sac cross-sectional areas (CSA) less than 80 mm2, and negative in 94% of patients with nonspecific low back pain, no leg pain or claudication and dural sac CSA greater than 120 mm2. Methods. Fifty patients with central or combined LSS, 22 with lateral stenosis only and 43 with posterolateral disc herniation with unilateral radiculopathy were included. Using axial MR images of the lumbar spine, the sedimentation sign was assessed by 2 observers independently, without knowledge of participant clinical history or diagnosis. Frequencies of a positive sign in each patient group were calculated. Results. The sedimentation sign was positive in 2% of patients with disc herniation, 23% with lateral stenosis, and 54% with central or combined stenosis. When the analysis included only patients with LSS with dural sac CSA less than 80 mm2 and walking limitations similar to the original study introducing the sedimentation sign (n = 17), the proportion of patients presenting with a positive sign increased to 82%. Conclusion. The sedimentation sign is more prevalent in patients with the clinical diagnosis of central or combined LSS than in patients with lateral stenosis only or posterolateral disc herniation. Yet, whether it enhances current diagnostic practices remains undetermined. The sedimentation sign was evaluated in 3 groups of patients with different clinical diagnoses. The sign is more prevalent in patients with central or combined lumbar spinal stenosis than in patients with lateral stenosis only or posterolateral disc herniation. Whether the sedimentation sign enhances current diagnostic practices is uncertain.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations33
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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