Evaluation of electromyographic monitoring during insertion of thoracic pedicle screws
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We prospectively studied the use of intercostal EMG monitoring as an indicator of the accuracy of the placement of pedicle screws in the thoracic spine. We investigated 95 thoracic pedicles in 17 patients. Before insertion of the screw, the surgeon recorded his assessment of the integrity of the pedicle track. We then stimulated the track using a K-wire pedicle probe connected to a constant current stimulator. A compound muscle action potential (CMAP) was recorded from the appropriate intercostal or abdominal muscles. Postoperative CT was performed to establish the position of the screw. The stimulus intensity required to evoke a muscle response was correlated with the position of the screw on the CT scan. There were eight unrecognised breaches of the pedicle. Using 7.0 mA as a threshold, the sensitivity of EMG was 0.50 in detecting a breached pedicle and the specificity was 0.83. Thoracic pedicle screws were accurately placed in more than 90% of patients. EMG monitoring did not significantly improve the reliability of placement of the screw.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".