Use of osteogenic protein–1 in spinal fusion: literature review and preliminary results in a prospective series of high-risk cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: The safety and effectiveness of osteogenic protein (OP)-1 putty (recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-7) in promoting fusion in complex spinal cases was studied in nine cases. METHODS: The authors prospectively evaluated nine patients requiring spinal fusion in whom there were medical risk factors that would inhibit osseous fusion. Intraoperatively the OP-1 putty mixed with autologous bone was placed at the fusion site. Outcome measurement instruments were used to provide information on patient demographics, comorbidities, and pain. The Short Form (SF)-36 questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were administered pre- and postoperatively. All patients underwent routine radiography of the surgery site during follow-up examination. The age of the five women and four men ranged from 21 to 74 years (mean height 1.6 m, mean weight 76.7 kg). Risk factors included mucopolysaccharide syndrome, adrenal insufficiency, rheumatoid arthritis with chronic corticosteroid use, morbid obesity, and heavy smoking. Surgery, which consisted of five cervical and four lumbar procedures, including intradural surgery in three patients, was uneventful in all cases without perioperative complication. The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 15 months (mean 5.22 months). The ODI score changed from severe disability (mean 46.89) preoperatively to minimal and moderate disability (mean 34.56) postoperatively. The SF-36 survey showed overall improved mental and physical health scores. Fusion was present in all patients with greater than 3 months follow up. CONCLUSIONS: The OP-1 putty appears to be safe and effective in promoting spinal arthrodesis in patients in whom adverse medical risk factors exist.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".