MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intramedullary Spinal Cord Abscess; Descriptive Review of the Literature (P2.015)

2016· article· en· W2485017652 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Lapointe, Catherine Legault, Robert Altman, Vinh Donald

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Dysraphism and Malformations
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General HospitalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntramedullary rodSpinal cordMedicineAbscessSpinal epidural abscessEpidural abscessSpinal Cord DiseasesSurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Intramedullary spinal cord abscess (ISCA) is a potentially devastating infection of the central nervous system. However, little is known about this entity. We characterize clinical, epidemiological and imaging features of spinal cord abscesses. Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature review of reported ISCA and present a case due to Nocardia. Data were identified by searches of papers published on Embase, Medline, Cinahl and EMB databases, spanning the years 1830-2014, using key words “spinal cord”, “intramedullary”, “abscesses”, “infection”. An “abscess” had to be confirmed by imaging, culture from pyogenic debris/cerebrospinal fluid or intraoperatively. Results: We identified 197 cases of ISCA. We found a striking male predominance (71[percnt]). Almost half (44[percnt]) had acute presentations (0-7 days). Most common risk factors were dermal sinuses (30[percnt]; 54[percnt] under 12 yo), concomitant systemic infection (31[percnt]), and immunocompromised states (13[percnt]). The most common microorganisms were Staphyloccocus and Streptococcus, followed by polymicrobial infections and Mycobacterium Tuberculosis. On imaging, majority of abscesses showed multiple spinal segments extension (90[percnt]), gadolinium ring enhancement (68[percnt]), and diffusion restriction (100[percnt]; n=3). CSF analysis was characterized by leukocytosis, proteinorachia (79[percnt]) and hypoglychoracchia (64[percnt]). Most patients were treated by tandem surgery and antibiotics (63[percnt]). Of the 107 outcomes reported, 30[percnt] fully recovered and 4[percnt] died during course of illness. Conclusion: ISCA are rare and associated with poor outcomes. Rapid diagnosis is paramount to minimize morbidity. Clues to diagnosis include predisposed host, pyogenic CSF, and gadolinium ring enhancement with diffusion restriction. Optimal treatment remains undefined, however combined surgical drainage with appropriate antimicrobials appears most successful.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0170.019
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicSpinal Dysraphism and MalformationsFrench-language works237,207