MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330076093 · doi:10.5435/jaaos-20-06-336

The Spine-injured Patient: Initial Assessment and Emergency Treatment

2012· review· en· W2330076093 on OpenAlexaff
Rowan Schouten, Todd J. Albert, Brian K. Kwon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsVancouver Spine Surgery InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpinal columnIntensive care medicineCervical spineModalitiesSpinal cord injuryPhysical therapySpinal cordSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Failure to recognize spinal column or spinal cord injuries, or improper treatment of them, can have catastrophic and often irreversible neurologic consequences. Although the initial assessment is often shared with emergency care personnel, an orthopaedic surgeon's perspective can elevate the priority of spinal care to the level that is warranted. An accurate early appraisal, including complete neurologic assessment, is critical. All aspects of emergent care, including optimal immobilization precautions, resuscitation, and choice of imaging modalities, should be systematically reviewed, and practice guidelines should be adopted by each institution. Increased vigilance is required in patients with underlying ankylosing spinal conditions. The use of CT in the symptomatic patient is established, but the use of cervical MRI in the obtunded individual is contentious. By informing decisions around appropriate preliminary treatment, particularly for persons with neurologic deficits or those at high risk for developing neurologic impairment, long-term outcomes can be optimized.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations40
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic SurgeonsSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207