Morphologic Evaluation of Cervical Spine Anatomy with Computed Tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The computed tomography (CT) studies of the cervical spine from 50 males and 50 females were reviewed to provide morphometric data on a variety of anatomic parameters relevant to anterior cervical reconstruction and fixation. Measurements were made of the vertebral body width and midsagittal anteroposterior (AP) diameter and the distance between the medial borders of the longus coli muscles. Distances between adjacent endplates were also measured, both at their midpoint and at the anterior margin. Widths of the vertebral bodies measure 24.6 +/- 2.4 and 23.0 +/- 2.4 mm in males and females, respectively, with the narrowest measuring 17 and 14, respectively. The average midsagittal AP diameter of each vertebral body in males was approximately 17-18 mm, with the smallest AP diameter measured to be 13 mm. The average midsagittal AP diameter of each vertebral body in females was approximately 15-16 mm, with the smallest being 10 mm. CT scanning provides excellent osseous detail for the measurement of such parameters, and with its widespread use in the evaluation of cervical disorders, large numbers of patients can be reviewed.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".