MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326270384 · doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000001466

Efficacy of i-Factor Bone Graft versus Autograft in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

2016· article· en· W2326270384 on OpenAlexaff
Paul M. Arnold, Rick C. Sasso, Michael E. Janssen, Michael G. Fehlings, Joseph D. Smucker, Alexander R. Vaccaro, Robert F. Heary, Ashvin I. Patel, Benoît Goulet, Iain H. Kalfas, Branko Kopjar

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryAnterior cervical discectomy and fusionAdverse effectInvestigational device exemptionSpinal fusionDentistryClinical trialInternal medicineCervical spine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, controlled, parallel, single-blinded noninferiority multicenter pivotal FDA IDE trial. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate efficacy and safety of i-Factor Bone Graft (i-Factor) compared with local autograft in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for cervical radiculopathy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: i-Factor is a composite bone substitute material consisting of the P-15 synthetic collagen fragment adsorbed onto anorganic bone mineral and suspended in an inert biocompatible hydrogel carrier. P-15 has demonstrated bone healing efficacy in dental, orthopedic, and nonhuman applications. METHODS: Patients randomly received either autograft (N = 154) or i-Factor (N = 165) in a cortical ring allograft. Study success was defined as noninferiority in fusion, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Neurological Success endpoints, and similar adverse events profile at 12 months. RESULTS: At 12 months (follow-up rate 87%), both i-Factor and autograft subjects demonstrated a high fusion rate (88.97% and 85.82%, respectively, noninferiority P = 0.0004), significant improvements in NDI (28.75 and 27.40, respectively, noninferiority P < 0.0001), and high Neurological Success rate (93.71% and 93.01%, respectively, noninferiority P < 0.0001). There was no difference in the rate of adverse events (83.64% and 82.47% in the i-Factor and autograft groups, respectively, P = 0.8814). Overall success rate consisting of fusion, NDI, Neurological Success and Safety Success was higher in i-Factor subjects than in autograft subjects (68.75% and 56.94%, respectively, P = 0.0382). Improvements in VAS pain and SF-36v2 scores were clinically relevant and similar between the groups. A high proportion of patients reported good or excellent Odom outcomes (81.4% in both groups). CONCLUSION: i-Factor has met all four FDA mandated noninferiority success criteria and has demonstrated safety and efficacy in single-level ACDF for cervical radiculopathy. i-Factor and autograft groups demonstrated significant postsurgical improvement and high fusion rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations73
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207