MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152144498 · doi:10.3171/spi.2002.96.1.0006

Long-term outcome of anterior decompression and spinal fixation after placement of the Wellesley Wedge for thoracic and lumbar spinal metastasis

2002· article· en· W2152144498 on OpenAlexaff
David Yen, Vikas Kuriachan, Jeff Yach, Andrew Howard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Spine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryLumbarLesionDecompression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: The authors assessed the long-term results of anterior decompressive and vertebral body reconstructive surgery in which the Wellesley Wedge was applied in patients with metastatic spinal lesions over the life span of these individuals. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective review of the outcome of 27 consecutively treated patients who underwent surgery for thoracic or lumbar spine metastases. Decompressive surgery was performed via an anterior thoracotomy and/or retroperitoneal approach depending on the level of the lesion. The spine was reconstructed using a U-shaped plate with an interposed methylmethacrylate strut known as the Wellesley Wedge. RESULTS: Thirty percent of patients suffered medical complications whereas 22% experienced postoperative improvement, as reflected by an improved Frankel grade. Used in patients with a variety of primary tumor types, a spectrum of ages and neurological status, and extensive preoperative osseous spinal involvement and deformity, the Wellesley Wedge resulted in spinal stability for the duration of patients' lives in 92%. CONCLUSIONS: In this series the patient selection process for surgery was a challenge yet to be solved; however, considering the durability of the Wellesley Wedge itself, the authors will continue to use it in selected patients.

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)0.001
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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations16
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery SpineSame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207