Use of the Prone Position in the MRI Evaluation of Spinal Cord Retethering
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to determine the impact of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the management of spinal cord retethering, we retrospectively reviewed case and imaging records of 51 patients who underwent MRI examination in supine and prone positions. Group 1 included 8 control patients without cord tethering. They exhibited a normal level of the conus medullaris with normal surrounding subarachnoid space, and consistent anterior migration of the conus within the dural sac on MRI in prone position. Group 2 included 17 patients with tethered cord secondary to occult spinal dysraphism (spinal cord lipoma in 6 patients, thick filum terminale in 4, diastematomyelia in 4, myelomeningocele manqué in 2, and dermoid tumour in 1). Supine and prone MRI performed at a median period of time of 6 months after untethering showed resolution of posterior tethering in 5 out of the 7 patients who exhibited pre-operatively dorsal attachment of the spinal cord to the dura. Anterior migration of the conus or of the cord/filum complex in prone position was observed in only 24% of the cases. Group 3 included 26 patients with secondary tethered cord following prior myelomeningocele closure. Their MRI performed at a median interval of time of 11 months following untethering demonstrated resolution of the posterior cord tethering in only 8 out of the 24 patients who exhibited this feature pre-operatively. Anterior migration within the expanded dural sac was never noted in this group. We conclude that spine MRI is of limited value and that prone-positioned MRI is of no additional use in the evaluation of spinal cord retethering.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it