Back stab: percutaneous vertebroplasty for severe back pain.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence supporting use of percutaneous vertebroplasty for relief of pain and mechanical stability in patients with vertebral compression fractures unrelieved by conventional measures. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Ovid MEDLINE was searched from January 1966 to December2006 for all English-language papers on vertebroplasty. The quality of evidence in these papers was graded according to the 4-point classification system of evidence-based medicine. Level II evidence currently supports use of vertebroplasty. MAIN MESSAGE: Vertebroplasty alleviates pain from vertebral compression fractures that result from osteoporosis, hemangiomas, malignancies, and vertebral osteonecrosis. Vertebroplasty has provided substantial pain relief in 60% to 100% of patients; has decreasedanalgesic use in 34% to 91% of patients; and has improved physical mobility in 29% to 100% of patients. Contraindications to vertebroplasty include asymptomatic compression fractures of the vertebral body, vertebra plana, retropulsed bone fragments or tumours, active infection, uncorrectable coagulopathy, allergy to the bone cement or opacification agent, severe cardiopulmonary disease, pregnancy, and pre-existing radiculopathy. The short-term complication rate was found to be 0.5% to 54%. Rare but serious complications include compression of the spinal cord or nerve root, infection, cement embolization causing pulmonary infarct and clinical symptoms, paradoxical embolization of the cerebral artery, and severe hematomas. CONCLUSION: Vertebroplasty is a safe and effective treatment for vertebral fractures that cannot be treated using conservative measures.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".