MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040252131 · doi:10.1159/000355127

Ring Apophysis Fracture in Pediatric Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Common Entity

2013· article· en· W2040252131 on OpenAlexaff
Ash Singhal, Anish R. Mitra, D. Douglas Cochrane, Paul Steinbok

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Neurosurgery · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLumbar disc herniationIncidence (geometry)Disc herniationLumbarSurgeryPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) can be associated with ring apophysis fracture (RAF), which is found in 6% of adult cases. However, the incidence and management of RAF in pediatric LDH is not well documented. The purpose of this study is to determine the prevalence of RAF in pediatric LDH, identify risk factors and explore the influence of RAF on the surgical management and outcome of LDH patients. METHODS: Hospital records and images were retrospectively reviewed for all pediatric patients (<18 years old) who underwent CT scanning for LDH at BC Children's Hospital from 1985 to 2010. RESULTS: Forty-two patients met the study inclusion criteria. RAF was present in 38% of the pediatric patients with LDH. There was a significant correlation with gender (p = 0.021; 55% of the males had RAF, and 20% of the females) and association with central herniations (p = 0.003). At the last follow-up, 58% of the patients with RAF were symptom free, compared with 68% of the patients with no RAF. CONCLUSION: RAF is more frequently associated with LDH in children than in adults. Gender and central disc herniation are associated with RAF. Given the frequency of RAF, to properly identify these fractures and anticipate their treatment, preoperative CT would be necessary.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations29
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric NeurosurgerySame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207