Vertebroplasty in Osteoporotic Spine Fractures: A Quality of Life Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to perform a quantitative evaluation of the improvement in functional capacity, quality of life, mental function, reduction in drug intake and impact on hospital admissions after vertebroplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic compression fractures. The efficacy of vertebroplasty in relief of pain has been addressed in previous publications but the quantitative evaluation of improvement in quality of life has not been addressed before. METHODS: This is a prospective study of 42 patients with 83 symptomatic vertebral fractures treated by vertebroplasty with a mean follow-up of 9.1 months. The outcome was measured by pre and postoperatively utilizing the Visual Analogue Scale, the Oswestry Disability Index, the Rolland Morris Scale for Back Pain and EuroQol-5D questionnaire (EQ-5D). The postoperative evaluations were performed at one week, one month, three month, and six month intervals thereafter. RESULTS: In 34 out of 39 active patients, marked pain relief was noted (87%). The Visual Analogue Scale score improved from a mean preoperative score of 8.2 to a mean postoperative score of 2.9 (p=0.0000003) at one week follow up and 3.9 at the last follow-up. The Rolland Morris Scale for Back Pain showed a drop from a mean preoperative rating of 13 to a mean postoperative rating of 10, showing a 25% improvement (p= 0.0207). The Oswestry Disability Index preoperatively was 64.4 which improved to 43.8 postoperatively, showing a 32% improvement (p= 0.0207). The EQ-5D showed a mean preoperative index value of 0.097 and mean postoperative index value of 0.592 (p = 0.0000003). All p-values were determined by the Willcoxin sign-ranked test. CONCLUSION: Vertebroplasty is a safe and efficacious procedure with a resulting improvement in pain and quality of life.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".