MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042693004 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181a87b66

Intraoperative Multimodality Monitoring in Adult Spinal Deformity

2009· article· en· W2042693004 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntraoperative neurophysiological monitoringSomatosensory evoked potentialSurgerySpinal fusionElectromyographyFalse positive paradoxLumbarGold standard (test)PopulationDeformityVertebrectomyArthrodesisAnesthesiaRadiologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 102 consecutive adult patients who underwent intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IOM) during spinal deformity corrective surgery. OBJECTIVE: To report the sensitivity and specificity of combined IOM in this study population using the postoperative neurologic examination as the "gold standard." SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: IOM is recommended during corrective spinal surgery and has been widely used in the pediatric deformity population. However, there are limited data describing the application of IOM in adults undergoing spinal deformity corrective surgery. METHODS: The study group consisted of 102 patients undergoing spinal deformity corrective surgery between 2001 and 2004. Patients were monitored using at least 2 or more electrophysiological methods including somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEP), motor-evoked potentials (MEP), and electromyography (EMG). RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 41.5 years (+/-17). The majority of the operative procedures involved instrumented fusion from thoracic to lumbar/sacral spine (n = 55), thoracic-pelvis fusion (n = 26), and a combined total of 32 osteotomies (including 25 pedicle subtraction osteotomies and 7 Smith-Peterson osteotomies). SSEPs were recorded successfully in 101 (99%), EMGs in 89 of 102 (87%), and MEPs in 12 of 16 (75%). Five cases were true positives (4.95%), and these were all detected by combined monitoring (2-SSEP, 2-EMG, 1-MEP). There were no false positives with SSEPs, but EMG resulted in 30 of 89 (34%) false positives. There were 4 false negatives with SSEPs, which reduced its sensitivity to 33%. There was 1 false negative with EMG, and 0 with MEPs. When these results were collated, the overall sensitivity of combined multimodality IOM in this adult deformity series was 100%, specificity 84.3%, PPV 13.9%, and NPV 97%. The combined sensitivity in the osteotomy group (n = 32) was 67%, specificity 98%, PPV 80%, and NPV 96%. In comparison, there were no IOM abnormalities in those patients who had in situ/minor corrective procedures (n = 18; largely adult degenerative scoliosis). CONCLUSION: Multimodality IOM of spinal cord sensory and motor function during surgical correction of adult spinal deformity is feasible and provides useful neurophysiological data with an overall sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 84.3% (67% and 98%, respectively in patients undergoing major deformity correction).

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.306 · 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