Follow-up of Prosthetic Disc Nucleus Replacement on Lumbar Intervertebral Disc Herniation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveFollow-up of the clinical outcome of prosthetic disc nucleus replacement on patients with lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Methods16 patients with lumar intervertebral disc herniation were implanted prosthetic disc nucleus from June to August 2003, including 10 males and 6 females. The operation levels were at L_ 4-5 in 10 patients and L_5～S_1 in 6 patients. All patients were followed up from 28 to 32 months (averaged 30 months). The contents include pain, physical examination, Short-form of McGill Pain Questionnaire investigation, Visual Analogue Scales(VAS) and Present Pain Intensity(PPI), X-ray and MRI examination, etc. ResultsAfter surgery, 16 patients experienced clinical symptom relief, the displacement of PDN in 1 case and dislocation in 1case, the height of intervertebral space becoming narrower in 5 cases and endplate subsiding in 1 case. ConclusionProsthetic disc nucleus replacement acquired satisfactory after operation, but some complication may occurre in long-term.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".