The current status of percutaneous vertebroplasty in Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the current status of percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) practice in Canada, including the preprocedure work up, operative technique and follow-up practice of physicians performing the procedure in this country. METHODS: Questionnaires were emailed to 31 institutions performing percutaneous vertebroplasty across Canada. RESULTS: Twenty-three (74.2%) completed surveys were returned, representing data from 1516 vertebroplasties performed by 66 radiologists and surgeons. Preoperative routine imaging and screening practice varies widely. The majority of respondents perform PVP under conscious sedation; however, an anaesthetist is present in only 22% of institutions. Biplane fluoroscopy is used in 43.5% of practices. The preference for unipedicular or bipedicular injection varies: in 7 institutions, a unipedicular approach is used in at least 80% of cases. Patients receive a follow-up by the screening physician in 65.2% of institutions. There were 4 complications requiring treatment. Venous and intradiscal extravasation rates were 20.8% and 25.3%, respectively; however, the vast majority of these were clinically insignificant. CONCLUSION: PVP complication rates reported in our Canadian survey compare favourably with those in the published literature. The number of PVPs performed annually in the institutions surveyed appears small, relative to the figures from the United States. The prevalence of osteoporosis and incidence of vertebral compression fractures in Canada is increasing as the population ages, and demand for PVP is likely to rise significantly in the coming years.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".