The Relationship Between Concave Angle of Vertebral Endplate and Lumbar Intervertebral Disc Degeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. A retrospective study of magnetic resonance imaging of the lower lumbar spine. Objective. To describe the characteristics of the concave angle of vertebral endplate (CAVE) and study the association between CAVE and lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration (IVDD). Summary of Background Data. The vertebral endplate is responsible for transferring stress between disc and vertebral body, and its concavity is important in dispersing compression stress. However, the characteristics of CAVE and the relationship between CAVE and IVDD have not been investigated. Methods. Magnetic resonance images of the lower lumbar spine in 511 patients with low back pain were examined by 2 experienced spine surgeons. The grades of IVDD and lumbar disc herniation (LDH) were evaluated, several parameters including CAVE, height, and the sagittal diameter of vertebral body were measured, and the association between IVDD or LDH and CAVE was analyzed. Results. At L3–L4, L4–L5, and L5–S1, CAVE was smaller in the upper endplate (i.e., the inferior endplate of the superior vertebra) than in the lower endplate (i.e., the superior endplate of the inferior vertebra). There was no male/female difference in the size of CAVE in any of the segments. According to partial correlation analysis, CAVE was moderately related to IVDD, but no association between CAVE and LDH was found. Conclusion. When lumbar IVDD occurs, the CAVE increases and the endplate tends to flatten. The degree of flattening is related to the severity of the degeneration. This study measured the morphologic parameters of the lower lumbar spine on magnetic resonance imaging, described the characteristics of the concave angle of the vertebral endplate (CAVE), and analyzed the relationship between lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration or lumbar disc herniation and CAVE.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".