MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071407324 · doi:10.1055/s-0033-1357360

Outcomes in Adult Scoliosis Patients Who Undergo Spinal Fusion Stopping at L5 Compared with Extension to the Sacrum

2013· review· en· W2071407324 on OpenAlexaff
Zeeshan M. Sardar, Dena J. Fischer, Andrea C. Skelly, Jean Ouellet

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Spine-Care Journal · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSacrumScoliosisMedicineExtension (predicate logic)Spinal fusionAnatomySurgeryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study Design Systematic review. Study Rationale Adult scoliosis is a common disorder that is associated with significantly higher pain, functional impairment, and effect on quality of life than those without scoliosis. Surgical spinal fusion has led to quantifiable improvement in patient's quality of life. However, for patients undergoing long lumbar fusion, the decision to stop the fusion at L5 or to extend to S1, particularly if the L5-S1 disc is healthy, remains controversial. Objective The aim of the study is to evaluate if fusion stopping at L5 increases the comparative rates of revision, correction loss, and/or poor functional outcomes compared with extension to the sacrum in adult scoliosis patients who require spinal fusion surgery. Materials and Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, the National Guideline Clearinghouse Database and bibliographies of key articles that evaluated adult scoliosis patients who required spinal fusion surgery and compared outcomes for fusions to the sacrum versus stopping at L5. Articles were included on the basis of predetermined criteria and were appraised using a predefined quality-rating scheme. Results From 111 citations, 26 articles underwent full-text review, and 3 retrospective cohort studies met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. Revision rates in subjects who underwent spinal fusion to L5 (20.8-23.5%) were lower in two studies compared with those with fusion extending to the sacrum (19.0-58.3%). Studies that assessed deformity correction used different measures, making comparison across studies difficult. No significant differences were found in patient-reported functional outcomes across two studies that used different measures. Conclusion The limited data available suggest that differences in revision rates did not consistently reach statistical significance across studies that compared spinal fusion to L5 versus extension to sacrum in adult scoliosis patients.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.007
Bibliometrics0.0170.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Spine-Care JournalSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207