MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059517781 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3182a7f521

Myelopathy and Spinal Deformity

2013· article· en· W2059517781 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed F. Shamji, Christopher P. Ames, Justin S. Smith, John M. Rhee, Jens R. Chapman, Michael G. Fehlings

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyelopathyKyphosisDeformitySpinal cordSurgeryDecompressionSagittal planeSpinal deformitySpinal Cord DiseasesCervical vertebraeSpinal decompressionRadiologyRadiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surgical management of degenerative cervical myelopathy requires careful pathoanatomic consideration to select between various surgical options from both anterior and posterior approach. Hitherto, unexplored is the relevance of cervical deformity to the pathophysiology of such neurological disability, and whether correction of that deformity should be a surgical objective when planning for reconstruction after spinal cord decompression. Such correction could address both the static cord compression and the dynamic repetitive cord injury, while also restoring more normal biomechanics to the cervical spine. The articles in this focus issue's section on cervical spinal deformity reveal that cervical sagittal alignment is geometrically related to thoracolumbar spinal pelvic alignment and to T1 slope, and that it is further clinically correlated to regional disability and general health scores and to myelopathy severity. These conclusions are based on narrative reviews and a selection of primary research data, reflecting the nascency of this field. They further recommend for preoperative assessment of spinal alignment when significant deformity is suspected, and that correction of cervical kyphosis should be an objective when surgery is planned.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

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

Citations52
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207