Is referral to a spine surgeon a double-edged sword?: patient concerns before consultation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the concerns of adult patients with spine-related complaints during the period between referral to and consultation with a spine surgeon. DESIGN: Prospective survey. SETTING: Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 338 consecutive, nonemergent patients before consultation with a single spine surgeon over a 5-month period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient concerns, effect of referral to a spine surgeon, and effect of waiting to see a spine surgeon. RESULTS: The issues patients reported to be most concerning were ongoing pain (45.6% rated this as most concerning), loss of function (23.4%), need for surgery (12.1%), and permanence of the condition (9.6%). Regression analysis demonstrated that older age was an independent predictor of increased level of concern regarding pain (P=.01) and disability (P=.04). Forty-seven percent of all patients listed the need for surgery among their top 3 concerns. Mere referral to a spine surgeon (P=.03) was an independent predictor of increased concern regarding the need for surgery. Sex, diagnosis, surgical candidacy, and actual wait time were not predictive of increased concerns. Patients reported family physicians to be their most influential information source regarding spinal conditions. CONCLUSION: Timely provision of more specific information regarding the benign and non-surgical nature of most degenerative spinal conditions might substantially reduce patients' exaggerated concerns regarding the probability of surgery for a considerable number of patients referred to spine surgeons.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".