Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. Literature review. Objective. To discuss the presentation and evaluation of adult patients with acquired spondylolytic spondylolisthesis of low-grade severity and to review surgical treatment options. Summary of Background Data. Low-grade adult acquired spondylolytic spondylolisthesis is one of the most common forms of spondylolisthesis. Methods. Literature review. Results. Adults with symptomatic low-grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis are treated predominantly nonoperatively, with activity modification, physiotherapy, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, and local injections. Surgical treatment is reserved for individuals with intractable back pain and/or radicular symptoms. A number of surgical options exist, including direct pars repair, and fusion with or without decompression. Fusion can be achieved by providing anterior column support alone, posterior support alone, or a combined circumferential approach; the optimal method by which fusion should be achieved has not been established. Conclusions. The management of low-grade acquired spondylolytic spondylolisthesis requires a thoughtful and individualized approach, recognizing the frequently benign natural history of the deformity and the potentially good clinical outcomes from surgery in those select patients with intolerable back and leg pain. While fusion is the mainstay of surgical management, a prospective randomized study would be extremely useful to delineate the optimal fusion technique. Low-grade acquired spondylolytic spondylolisthesis in adults is a frequently benign condition. This paper reviews the natural history, clinical evaluation, surgical options for such patients. The optimal fusion technique has not been established, although a systematic review of the literature favors procedures that provide circumferential stability
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".