MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Subaxial Cervical Spine Trauma

2006· review· en· W2182691436 on OpenAlexaff
Brian K. Kwon, Alexander R. Vaccaro, Jonathan N. Grauer, Charles G. Fisher, Marcel F. Dvorak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injurySurgeryCervical spinePhysical examinationReduction (mathematics)RadiographySpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subaxial cervical spine injuries are common, ranging in severity from minor ligamentous strain or spinous process fracture to complete fracture-dislocation with bone and ligament failure, resulting in severe spinal cord injury. Understanding the epidemiology, anatomy, biomechanics, and classification of subaxial cervical spine injuries is important. Emergent management of such injuries is based on obtaining an accurate clinical history, careful physical examination, and organized radiographic evaluation. Attaining a unified approach to the wide spectrum of subaxial cervical injuries is difficult. In addition, controversy exists regarding the safety of closed reduction in certain injury patterns and the administration of methylprednisolone for acute spinal cord injury. Definitive management (surgical or nonsurgical) is based on the assessment of the mechanical instability of the injury, the presence or absence of neurologic impairment, and various patient factors that may influence outcome. Several complications, including the deterioration of neurologic status, may occur with either surgical or nonsurgical management, but the most frequent mistake made is missing the injury on initial evaluation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations99
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic SurgeonsSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207