Universal disease-specific outcome instruments for spine trauma: a global perspective on relevant parameters to evaluate clinical and functional outcomes of thoracic and lumbar spine trauma patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Besides a patient reported outcome measure, the AOSpine Knowledge Forum Trauma aims to develop a new concept of a surgeon reported outcome measure (SROM) for spine trauma patients. This study aims to identify parameters that spine surgeons consider relevant to evaluate clinical and functional outcomes of thoracic and lumbar spine trauma patients. METHODS: An international cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted among spine surgeons from the five AOSpine International world regions. They were asked to evaluate the relevance of a compilation of 16 clinical and radiological parameters for thoracic and lumbar spine trauma patients, both for the short term (3 months-2 years) and long term (≥2 years), on a five-point scale. The responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, frequency analysis, and Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Out of the 279 invited members of AOSpine International and the International Spinal Cord Society, 118 (42.3 %) participated in this study. Of the 16 surveyed parameters, 5 were identified as relevant by at least 70 % of the participants. Neurological status was identified as most relevant. In contrast, five parameters were not deemed relevant for any spine region or time period, except for comorbidity. Only minor differences were observed when analyzing the responses according to each world region, spine surgeons' clinical experience, or professional background. CONCLUSIONS: Including a large and representative sample of spine trauma experts, this study identified parameters to evaluate clinical and functional outcomes of thoracic and lumbar spine trauma patients. The results form the basis for the development of a SROM for this specific patient 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".