MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy of Combined Magnetic Field Treatment on Spinal Fusion: A Review of the Literature

2016· review· en· W2555530396 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Phillips, Brian Drew, Sheila Sprague, Ilyas Aleem

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical CentreMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNonunionSpinal fusionAdjunctComplicationSurgeryPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vertebral fractures place significant burdens on patients, caregivers, and the healthcare system at large. Nonunion is a frequent complication following vertebral fracture treatment, often resulting in significant patient pain and morbidity. Bone growth stimulators are an adjunct treatment modality proposed to increase rates of fracture healing. Combined magnetic field (CMF) bone growth stimulators have specifically been shown to increase union rates in patients with vertebral fractures. Certain populations, such as the elderly, postmenopausal women, and smokers, have demonstrated a preferentially greater response to CMF treatment. The present review focuses on the mechanism of action, efficacy, cost effectiveness, indications, contraindications, and safety of CMF treatment as an adjunct treatment for vertebral fractures. Future large high-quality investigations of adjunct CMF treatment for spine fusion patients focusing on patient-important outcomes are warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.385 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueJournal of Long-Term Effects of Medical ImplantsSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207