MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142475724 · doi:10.3171/ped.2006.104.5.305

Occult tethered cord syndrome: not an indication for surgery

2006· article· en· W2142475724 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Dysraphism and Malformations
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOccultTethered CordSpinal cordSurgeryIntervention (counseling)CordPathologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: The author describes the paucity of information known about occult tethered cord syndrome and summarizes the argument for using a nonsurgical approach in these cases. METHODS: A review of what we do and do not know about this syndrome is provided. Surgical procedures to divide the terminal filum in patients with symptoms of tethered spinal cord without the imaging correlates are said to result in clinical improvement, yet there is little physiological evidence to support the surgical release of the filum in the absence of other anatomical lesions. Validated diagnostic and outcome measures are also lacking, which makes the interpretation of reported results exceedingly difficult. Finally, reports used to support surgical intervention are limited by small size, the absence of control groups, and observer bias. CONCLUSIONS: Without conclusive clinical evidence, the arguments supporting surgery for occult tethered cord syndrome must be viewed cautiously.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.254 · 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