MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560770596

Unusual Cases of Spinal Cord Infarct Secondary to Fibrocartiliginous Embolism in Minor Injuries or Exercises; Review of Case Reports and Literature

2016· article· en· W2560770596 on OpenAlexaff
Yasir Rehman

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cordInfarctionSpinal cord injurySurgeryEmbolismAnterior spinal arteryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnesthesiaMyocardial infarctionCardiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spinal cord infarction, secondary to fibrocartiliginous embolism (FCE), are reported after a major traumatic injury, or surgeries that relate to the spinal cord and the back of the upper body, but are rarely reported with the activities that are usually minor. Spinal cord infarct, secondary to FCE in minor trauma or activity is quite common, and bears potentially devastating consequences. It is postulated that an acute increase in intra discal pressure embolizes disc debris retrogradely to the spinal artery, leading to spinal cord infarction. The main objective of this literature review is to present important cases of spinal cord infarction, secondary to FCE, during routine activities. Using the Ovid Medline, our search gave us eighteen published articles on FCE induced spinal cord infarcts in minor or routine activities. A clinical diagnosis of FCE would be desirable for many important reasons, as no single non-invasive investigation has been proven effective. This literature review is done to acquire a detailed knowledge about pathogenesis, clinical features, investigations, treatments and prognosis for FCE.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.352 · 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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and SciencesSame topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207