MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Subaxial Cervical Spine Trauma

2006· review· en· W2182691436 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.041
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