ProDisc-C
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study of 22 patients with single-level cervical spondylosis. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the changes in the biomechanics of the cervical spine after the insertion of a ProDisc-C (Synthes Spine, Paoli, PA) artificial disc. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical arthroplasty is designed to maintain cervical motion of the functional spinal unit (FSU) after cervical discectomy. The impact of the ProDisc-C on in vivo kinematics and sagittal alignment requires further assessment. METHODS: Flexion/extension lateral radiographs of the cervical spine were prospectively collected and reviewed in 22 patients preoperatively and after the placement of ProDisc-C. Disc height (DH), FSU angle, range of motion (ROM), and center of rotation (COR) were calculated at each time point using validated, computer-assisted methods. Preoperative values were compared with the postoperative values using paired student t tests. RESULTS: Mean follow-up time was 11.0 months (SD, 2.4 mo). At the surgical level, the ProDisc-C produced increased segmental ROM (P = 0.03), an anterior shift of 1.1 mm in COR X (P = 0.004), and increased DH both anteriorly (P < 0.0001) and posteriorly (P < 0.0001). At the inferior adjacent level, anterior DH decreased (P < 0.05) and posterior DH increased (P = 0.02) after surgery. The FSU angle at the surgical level increased (P < 0.0001), but the inferior adjacent-level FSU angle decreased (P = 0.002). No significant changes were observed at the superior adjacent level. CONCLUSIONS: The ProDisc-C increased segmental ROM and shifted the COR anteriorly at the surgical level. DH increased at the surgical level. The surgical level became more lordotic, whereas the inferior adjacent level became more kyphotic after ProDisc-C implantation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".