[Kyphoplasty as treatment for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: relatively safe, but still no evidence of functional improvement; a review of the literature].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine, on the basis of the available literature, whether kyphoplasty is a safe technique for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures that leads to functional improvement in the patient's activities of daily living. DESIGN: Review of the literature. METHOD. Publications on the results of kyphoplasty were retrieved from Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Studies were included on the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures with kyphoplasty involving more than 15 patients and with a follow-up of at least 6 months. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa quality assessment scale. RESULTS: 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. No randomised controlled trials were retrieved. Severe complications such as pulmonary embolism, spinal stenosis, radiculopathy, and epidural haematoma occurred in 13 of the 737 patients. Leakage of cement occurred in 133 out of 1205 treated vertebrae. In 2 studies in which the functional outcome was evaluated, there was a significant improvement in comparison with the control group after six months. CONCLUSION: Kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures has a low complication risk. However, the quality of the retrieved studies was not sufficient to answer the question whether kyphoplasty leads to improved function of the patient.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".