Clinical Equipoise and Treatment Decisions in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study is to evaluate clinician attitudes towards the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) in order to determine whether clinical equipoise exists for a segment of this patient population. The secondary objective is to examine the factors that influence treatment decisions. METHODS: Cross-sectional internet-based survey of neurologists, neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons. RESULTS: Between 40-60% of respondents recommended surgery for (1) patients with minimal or no symptoms, but incidentally discovered increased T2 signal within the cervical cord on MRI, (2) patients with mild symptoms and indentation of the cervical cord but without increased T2 signal and (3) those with at least moderately severe clinical findings accompanied by MRI showing effacement of the thecal sac but without indentation of the cord or increased T2 signal. The severity of the radiological abnormalities most strongly influence treatment decisions. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that clinical equipoise does exist for certain groups of patients with CSM, suggesting that a randomized controlled trial could be performed in this population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".