Does age affect surgical outcomes in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy? Results from the prospective multicenter AOSpine International study on 479 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In general, older patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) are felt to have lower recovery potential following surgery due to increased degenerative pathology, comorbidities, reduced physiological reserves and age-related changes to the spinal cord. This study aims to determine whether age truly is an independent predictor of surgical outcome and to provide evidence to guide practice and decision-making. METHODS: A total of 479 patients with DCM were prospectively enrolled in the CSM-International study at 16 centres. Our sample was divided into a younger group (<65 years) and an elderly (≥65 years) group. A mixed model analytic approach was used to evaluate differences in the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA), Nurick, Short Form-36 (SF-36) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores between groups. We first created an unadjusted model between age and surgical outcome and then developed two adjusted models that accounted for variations in (1) baseline characteristics and (2) both baseline and surgical factors. RESULTS: Of the 479 patients, 360 (75.16%) were <65 years and 119 (24.84%) were ≥65 years. Elderly patients had a worse preoperative health status (p<0.0001) and were functionally more severe (p<0.0001). The majority of younger patients (64.96%) underwent anterior surgery, whereas the preferred approach in the elderly group was posterior (58.62%, p<0.0001). Elderly patients had a greater number of decompressed levels than younger patients (p<0.0001). At 24 months after surgery, younger patients achieved a higher postoperative mJOA (p<0.0001) and a lower Nurick score (p<0.0001) than elderly patients. After adjustments for patient and surgical characteristics, these differences in postoperative outcome scores decreased but remained significant. CONCLUSIONS: Older age is an independent predictor of functional status in patients with DCM. However, patients over 65 with DCM still achieve functionally significant improvement after surgical decompression.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".