MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146590039 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.110581

Thermography Detects Subclinical Inflammation in Chronic Tophaceous Gout

2012· article· en· W2146590039 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Martin Schiavenato, Ralf Thiele

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfrared Thermography in Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)SurgeryRetrospective cohort studyOswestry Disability IndexLumbarCohortInternal medicineLow back pain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>ABSTRACT</h3> <h3>Study Design:</h3> Retrospective cohort study. <h3>Objective:</h3> To compare outcomes and complications of stand-alone minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion (LIF) vs revision posterior surgery for the treatment of lumbar adjacent segment disease. <h3>Methods:</h3> Adults who underwent LIF or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for adjacent segment disease were compared. Exclusion criteria: &gt;grade 1 spondylolisthesis, posterior approach after LIF, and L5/S1 surgery. Patient demographics, estimated blood loss, hospital length of stay, complications, reoperations, health-related quality of life measures, and radiographs were examined. Data were analyzed with the χ<sup>2</sup>, Wilcoxon signed rank, and Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> tests. <h3>Results:</h3> A total of 17 LIF and 16 TLIF patients were included. Demographics were similar. Follow up was similar (LIF: 22.9 ± 11.8 months vs TLIF: 22.0 ± 4.6 months; <i>P</i> = .86). The LIF patients had significantly less blood loss (LIF: 36 ± 16 mL vs TLIF: 700 ± 767 mL; <i>P</i> &lt; .001) and shorter length of stay (LIF: 2.6 ± 2.9 days vs TLIF: 3.3 ± 0.9 days; <i>P</i> = .001). There were no intraoperative complications. Revision rate was 4 of 17 in LIF and 3 of 16 in TLIF (<i>P</i> = .73). Baseline health-related quality of life and radiographic measurements were similar. In both groups, back and leg pain scores significantly improved, and in LIF, the Owestry Disability Index, and EuroQol-5D significantly improved. The LIF had a significant increase in intervertebral height (LIF: 4.8 ± 2.9 mm, <i>P</i> &lt; .001, TLIF: 1.3 ± 3.4 mm, <i>P</i> = .37), which was significantly greater for LIF than TLIF (<i>P</i> = .002). Similarly, LIF had a significant increase in segmental lordosis (LIF: 5.6° ± 4.9°, <i>P</i> &lt; .001, TLIF: 3.6° ± 8.6°, <i>P</i> = .16), which was not significantly different between groups. <h3>Conclusions:</h3> Patients with adjacent segment disease may receive significant benefit from stand-alone LIF or TLIF. The LIF offers advantages of less blood loss and a shorter hospital stay. <h3>Level of Evidence:</h3> 3

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicInfrared Thermography in MedicineFrench-language works237,207