Differences between different posterior stabilization at atlanto-axial joint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary form only given. Trauma and disorders are the major cause of spinal cord injuries at the C1-C level, which have resulted in complete or incomplete loss of sensory and motor functions. More and more accidents occur, which spend a lot of money in surgical treatment and rehabilitation. Conservative therapy or surgical treatment with internal fixation devices has been commonly used to stabilize the spine and enhance spine fusion for minimized compression in spinal cod leading to neurological deficits and other secondary injuries. The purpose of this research was to investigate the effect of various internal fixation devices for improving rotation stiffness of unstable atlanto-axial joint using a canine model. The results indicated that posterolateral plating provided the optimal stiffness across C1-2 in all the 6 tested directions than did the other 2 techniques although both the latter also had significantly increased stiffness compared to control group (P<0.05). Also, the results supported the use of each tested stabilization techniques for fixing the atlanto-axial instability. For preserving the optimal C1-2 motibility, procedures such as posterior wiring and/or Halifax interlaminar clamping rather than posterolateral plating and screwing should be considered first.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".