Dynamic Interspinous Process Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A literature review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the mechanisms of action and effectiveness of interspinous distraction devices in managing symptomatic lumbar spinal pathology. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Fusion operations have traditionally been used to manage many disorders of the lumbar spine related to deformity, pain, or instability. Concern over the long-term effects of fusion on adjacent segments has led to the development of the concept of dynamic stabilization. METHODS: A Medline search was performed using the key words "interspinous implants," "interspinous devices," and "lumbar dynamic stabilization." The abstracts of each were reviewed. Relevant articles were reviewed in detail and other appropriate references obtained. In addition, when available, nonpublished manufacturer's information was reviewed. RESULTS: Articles describing the following implants were included in this review: the Minns Device, the Interspinous "U," the Diam, the Wallis Implant, and the X STOP. CONCLUSIONS: These devices continue to be evaluated in clinical trials. Early results suggest a possible role in the management of degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".