MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Pilot Study of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Closed Reduction of Cervical Spine Fractures

2006· article· en· W2078560818 on OpenAlexaff
Tim E. Darsaut, Robert Ashforth, Ravi Bhargava, Robert Broad, Derek Emery, Frank Kortbeek, R. Lambert, Mitch Lavoie, James Mahood, Ian MacDowell, Richard Fox

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpinal canalCervical canalReduction (mathematics)Magnetic resonance imagingTraction (geology)DecompressionSurgeryCervical spineCervical vertebraeRadiologySpinal cordCervix

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: We report on a prospective selective case series of 17 patients with cervical fracture-dislocations treated with closed reduction under MRI guidance. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the safe and effective use of in-line axial traction in the reduction of cervical fracture-dislocations using MRI guidance. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Closed reduction of the cervical spine for acute fracture-dislocations has been a traditional technique used for restoring vertebral alignment and providing neural element decompression. The safety of this technique has been questioned, with concerns of disc migration and overdistraction causing neurologic worsening cited as reasons to choose operative reduction and decompression as a safer option in some circumstances. METHODS: Seventeen patients with fracture-dislocations of the subaxial cervical spine were given a trial of traction under MRI guidance between 1999 and 2003. The incidence of posteriorly herniated disc material was noted, and the diameter of the spinal canal at the injured level was recorded before and after traction. RESULTS: All patients tolerated traction without neurologic worsening. Pretraction disc disruption was found in 15 of 17 (88.2%) of patients, with posterior herniation in 4 of 17 (23.5\%). Traction caused a return of herniated disc material toward the disc space in all cases. Canal dimensions improved in 11 of 17 patients, with canal diameter increasing by a factor of 1.1 to 3.0, with a mean improvement of 1.73. The process of reduction was observed to be a gradual one, with progressive, significant improvement in canal dimensions occurring before anatomic realignment. As distracting force was increased, sequential MRIs showed that canal dimensions did not diminish at any time in any patient. CONCLUSIONS: MRI monitoring in closed cervical reduction is a useful research tool for this technique. Closed reduction appears to be safe as used in this preliminary study and is effective in achieving immediate spinal cord decompression.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

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 head0.313
Teacher spread0.296 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations42
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207