The Feasibility of Two Screws Anterior Fixation for Type II Odontoid Fracture Among Arabs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of two screws anterior fixation of the odontoid process among Arab adults. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Anterior screw fixation is the treatment of choice for type II odontoid fractures. In order to perform the procedure safely, the diameter of the odontoid process should be wide enough to allow for the placement of one or two screws. METHODS: A retrospective review of 156 computed tomography scans of the cervical spine was done. The included patients were Arabs, adults (at least 18 years old), and had no evidence of upper cervical spine trauma, deformity, infection, tumor, or surgery. The minimum external transverse diameter (METD), minimum internal transverse diameter (MITD), minimum external anteroposterior diameter (MEAD), and minimum internal anteroposterior diameter (MIAD) of the odontoid process were measured. A P value of ≤0.05 was considered as the cutoff level of statistical significance. RESULTS: Our study included 94 (60.3%) males and 62 (39.7%) females. The mean age of the subjects was 37.8 ± 16.9 years (range 18-85). The mean values of the METD, MITD, MEAD, and MIAD were 8.7 ± 1.0 mm, 6.0 ± 1.1 mm, 10.3 ± 1.0 mm, and 7.4 ± 1.1 mm, respectively. Men had larger diameters compared to women. This was statistically significant for METD (P = 0.035) and MEAD (P < 0.001). The METD was <9.0 mm in 95 (60.9%) subjects, while the MITD was <8.0 mm in 153 (98.1%) subjects. These findings were not significantly different between males and females. CONCLUSION: Two screws anterior fixation of type II odontoid fracture is not feasible among the majority of Arabs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".