Preoperative Embolization of Spinal Metastatic Disease: Rationale and Technical Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spine is the most common site of bony metastatic disease, with the incidence of spinal metastatic disease increasing, likely as a result of improved survivorship in patients with cancer. Although occasionally incidentally identified through cancer screening/staging or studies done for other reasons, spinal metastatic disease often is symptomatic. The three key points to consider when devising a treatment algorithm are neurological compromise, spinal instability, and individual patient factors. Because the goal of treatment is almost always palliation, a multidisciplinary approach is taken to offer the best chance at alleviating the patient's symptoms. Consideration is given to various treatment choices, such as radiation therapy, chemotherapy, as well as locoregional management strategies, such as thermal ablation (radiofrequency and cryoablation). However, the mainstay of accepted management, especially in those whose life expectancy is > 12 weeks where other strategies have failed, is surgical resection and local stabilization. In this article we review the role and rationale for preoperative embolization of spinal metastatic disease and discuss various related issues, including determining who is most likely to benefit from preoperative embolization, important anatomical considerations, and other technical points, such as timing of surgery and accepted methods of achieving effective local tumor devascularization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".