Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Degenerative spinal deformity afflicts a significant portion of the elderly and is increasing in prevalence. Recent evidence has revealed sagittal plane malalignment to be a key driver of pain and disability in this population and has led to a significant shift toward a more evidence-based management paradigm. In this narrative review, we review the recent literature on the epidemiology, evaluation, management, and outcomes of degenerative adult spinal deformity (ASD). ASD is increasing in prevalence in North America due to an aging population and demographic shifts. It results from cumulative degenerative changes focused in the intervertebral discs and facet joints that occur asymmetrically to produce deformity. Deformity correction focuses on restoration of global alignment, especially in the sagittal plane, and decompression of the neural elements. General realignment goals have been established, including sagittal vertical axis <50 mm, pelvic tilt <22°, and lumbopelvic mismatch <±9°; however, these should be tailored to the patient. Operative management, in carefully selected patients, yields satisfactory outcomes that appear to be superior to nonoperative strategies. ASD is characterized by malalignment in the sagittal and/or coronal plane and, in adults, presents with pain and disability. Nonoperative management is recommended for patients with mild, nonprogressive symptoms; however, evidence of its efficacy is limited. Surgery aims to restore global spinal alignment, decompress neural elements, and achieve fusion with minimal complications. The surgical approach should balance the desired correction with the increased risk of more aggressive maneuvers. In well-selected patients, surgery yields excellent outcomes.
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.
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) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it