MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321197213 · doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000001096

Universal No-fault Compensation is Associated With Improved Return to Work Rates in Spine Fusion

2015· article· en· W2321197213 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan F. Manson, Priyan R. Landham, John Cunningham, Alexander Montgomery, Angus S. Don, Peter A. Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCompensation (psychology)Workers' compensationLumbarSpinal fusionPhysical therapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. Retrospective cohort study and systematic literature review. Objective. To examine the influence of “universal no-fault compensation” upon return-to-work rates in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion, and then to make comparison with workers' compensation (WC) and non-workers' compensation (non-WC) claimants. Summary of Background Data. Compensation has an adverse influence upon outcomes and return to work in lumbar spinal fusion. It is unclear whether this is due to the compensation per se, or due to the features of WC including its adversarial environment, delayed resolution of claims, and need for disability enhancement to promote compensation. The New Zealand Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is a universal no-fault system offering early treatment and salary reimbursement. Given the differing features of these compensation systems, comparison of return-to-work rates may give insight into the differing outcomes for the two compensation systems. Methods. From a cohort of 428 patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion, 178 patients covered by ACC system underwent a structured interview to determine pre-injury, pre-surgical, and post-surgical work status. A systematic literature review was performed relating to lumbar spine fusion, return to work, and WC. Results. The return-to-work rate for the ACC patients in work at the time of their injury was 81%. The systematic review of 21 studies including 2519 subjects revealed a return-to-work rate of 40% for WC patients, and 74% for non-WC patients (P < 0.001). There was a significantly greater return-to-work rate for ACC patients than WC patients (P < 0.001), but no difference between ACC and non-WC patients. Conclusion. The return-to-work rates for a universal no-fault compensation system are higher than those under WC cover, and are compatible with non-WC cases. This suggests that the features of WC may contribute to the inferior return-to-work rates. Level of Evidence: 3 Patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion under a universal no-fault compensation system attained 81% return to work. Systematic literature review reveals return-to-work rates of 40% for workers' compensation, and 74% for nonworkers' compensation. The adversarial environment, delayed resolution, and incentives for prolonged disability may reduce return-to-work rates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207