Do sagittal plane anatomical variations (angulation) of the cervical facets and C2 odontoid affect the geometrical configuration of the cervical lordosis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthropometric and statistical evaluation of measurements from digitization of 252 lateral cervical radiographs were used to investigate any correlation between radiographic measurements of cervical lordosis with sagittal plane facet angulation, articular pillar height, and inclination of the C2 odontoid with respect to the body of C2. Some researchers have hypothesized that facet and odontoid architecture variations can cause a reduction in cervical lordosis. To evaluate this hypothesis, the posterior aspect of the C2 dens, vertebral body corners, and superior and inferior facet surfaces of C2-C7 were digitized on 252 lateral cervical X-rays to calculate global angle, segmental angles, dens angle, facet angles, and facet height. No correlation between facet angle, articular pillar height, and cervical curve was found. Similarly, no correlation between the sagittal angle of the dens and any angle of cervical curvature was identified. There was correlation between the global ARA C2-C7 angle and the Cobb angles at C1-C7 (r = 0.71) and C2-C7 (r = 0.82). There was correlation between the global inclination of the atlas vertebral angle (APL) and the Cobb angle at C1-C7 (r = 0.66), Cobb angle at C2-C7 (r = 0.39), ARA C2-C7 (r = 0.42), and anterior translation of C2 compared to C7 (r = -0.46). Because no correlation between cervical facet and odontoid architecture and any segmental or global angle of cervical lordosis was found, conservative and surgical rehabilitative techniques aimed at the reduction of sagittal cervical deformities do not need to account for a patient's architecture of the cervical facets nor odontoid.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".