Long-Term Disability Assessment After Surgical Treatment of Low Grade Spondylolisthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine whether assessment of back surgery with disability scores is relevant. We also attempted to answer the question of whether this evaluation should be conducted by a surgeon or a medical doctor. This retrospective study analyzes the long-term outcome (average follow-up 7 years, range: 3-12) of 40 patients (mean age: 46.2 years) treated by posterior surgical decompression, posterolateral arthrodesis, with or without instrumentation, for symptomatic low-grade spondylolisthesis. All patients were interviewed postoperatively and examined the same day by an orthopedic surgeon, who was not involved in the patients' treatment, as well as by a medical doctor rehabilitation specialist. Impairment was assessed by a standardized clinical examination and by visual analog scales (VAS) of pain. Disability was assessed using two scales: the Quebec disability scale and the Beaujon scale. Anxiety and depression were assessed with a validated specific questionnaire (HAD). Patient's perceived handicap was assessed on a 100-mm VAS. Our results show that the scores of the two disability scales were highly correlated with the patient's overall satisfaction ( r = 0.73 and 0.77 for the Quebec scale and the Beaujon scale, respectively). The intraclass correlation coefficient showed very good or excellent correlation between the data collected by the surgeon and the rehabilitation specialist, ranging from 0.8 to 0.97. This finding clearly demonstrates that interview by a surgeon who is not involved in the patient's treatment does not influence the patient's assessment in terms of impairment, disability, or handicap. Moreover, our results suggest that disability scales are the most relevant outcome measures in the assessment of spine surgery.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".