MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133497813 · doi:10.3171/spi.2006.4.2.174

Cordectomy for the treatment of posttraumatic syringomyelia

2006· article· en· W2133497813 on OpenAlexaff
Adrian W. Laxton, Richard G. Perrin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Spine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Dysraphism and Malformations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCordectomyMedicineSyringomyeliaSurgerySpinal cord injurySpinal cordPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cordectomy is an effective treatment option in patients in whom posttraumatic syringomyelia develops following complete spinal cord injuries. Since the introduction of cordectomy, numerous approaches to the surgical treatment of posttraumatic syringomyelia have been developed. These newer developments have drawn the attention of surgeons and researchers away from cordectomy. In this report, the authors encourage a reconsideration of cordectomy for the treatment of posttraumatic syringomyelia after complete spinal cord injury. They describe four patients with posttraumatic syringomyelia who were treated successfully with cordectomy and review appropriate literature, examining the effectiveness of cordectomy in the treatment of posttraumatic syringomyelia. The findings of this review indicate that neurological improvement or stabilization occurred in 88% of patients in published reports of posttraumatic syringomyelia treated with cordectomy. The indications for cordectomy as well as factors that may contribute to the procedure's success are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery SpineSame topicSpinal Dysraphism and MalformationsFrench-language works237,207