Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. Retrospective study of pressure-controlled discography (PCD) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Objectives. Define the distribution of disc pain thresholds and determine, using an analytical model, if a false-positive subgroup could be identified. Summary of Background Data. The characteristics of the distribution of disc pain thresholds may allow identification of subgroups within a population. Methods. Disc pain thresholds were determined using PCD in patients with CLBP referred for discography. An analytical model and previously published data from an asymptomatic group were used to determine the distribution of false-positive discs. Results. A total of 838 discs from 253 patients were studied. Regression analysis demonstrated no significant association between levels from patients with CLBP with more than one positive disc. The distribution of discography pain thresholds from the patients with CLBP revealed two distinct groups: contact-sensitive (CS) and pressure-sensitive (PS). Discs in the CS group have a pain threshold of 0 psi, indicating that contact between the contrast and the disc provokes pain. Discs in the PS group have a pain threshold of > 0 psi, demonstrating that internal pressure must be generated to provoke pain. PS discs consist of moderately and minimally sensitive subgroups, with overlapping distributions. The minimally sensitive subgroup corresponds to false-positive discs. At 50 psi, the probability of a false-positive disc is 100%, at 25 psi 50%, at 19 psi 25%, and at 14 psi 10%. Conclusions. Discography should be performed under pressure control, as doing so allows the pain threshold of discs to be quantified, and the probability that a disc is false-positive estimated. Disc pain thresholds were determined using pressure controlled discography, demonstrating two distinct groups of positive discs, contact-sensitive pressure-sensitive. The pressure-sensitive group can be further divided into two subgroups, one of which is corresponds to false-positive discs. Knowing the distribution of this false-positive subgroup allows the probability that a disc is false positive on discography to be estimated.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".